whembly wrote:
Mission Accomplished... eh?

 whembly wrote:
Mission Accomplished... eh?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Mission Accomplished... eh?

And there's the whembly "make it about Benghazi!" post I've been waiting for...

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wait the U.S. can still issue letters of marque? What office in D.C. do I go to for that? Because frankly to hell with this nonsense, I'm stealing a destroyer out of the mothball fleet and going a piratin!

I'll call dibs on the USS Missouri "The Big MO"!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Mission Accomplished... eh?

And there's the whembly "make it about Benghazi!" post I've been waiting for...

What? Should I not care about my fellow American's death?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Come on guys. Benghazi wasn't a big deal. Just an irking little thing to annoy us.

The IRS thing on the other hand... There should be blood.

 Jihadin wrote:
IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.

 CptJake wrote:

cadbren wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?

Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?

Spurious was probably the wrong word. What I meant was that the attacks of Hesbollah have not been aimed at the West so Iran's support of them or not is irrelevant.

And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. .

 Jihadin wrote:
As was mention before. If we do put "Boots on Ground" (I'm retired) and we find out some of those WMD's were from Iraq. Best put the USS Lincoln and the USS Reagan side by side for one massive BBQ paid for by Bush. All this time we spent looking in the wrong desert. If we do put boots on ground in Syria. All that equipment we left behind in Iraq we might be able to get back. Generators alone can pretty much power ten divisions and a couple major airfields....

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.

Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.

Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm Irish, we've sorta kept our neutrality this past wee while. But please don't let that stop you trying to find some obscure example to prove your point, whatever that may be.

Well, officially, yes, Éire is neutral. But brother, does Éire provide troops for everyone else. I don't know if you've noticed this throughout history, but when Irishmen are not killing each other, they're selling out their services to someone else, be it Ole Boney or Uncle Sam. Last I heard, and I got this from someone who may have plucked the number out of the air, so grain of salt, but I was told this: there are still around 10k Irishmen sitting around Iraq as pmcs. Further, both England and the US deployed units that are still largely Irish there. (as none of the following are signatory to the UN Mercenary Convention: USA, UK, and Ireland. or Iraq, for that matter. Further, for real hilarity, the US still reserves the right to issue Letters of Marque [as Ron Paul pointed out])

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It's not hyperbole when it's true. Your position was exactly the average German's view at the time. You can call me out for saying 'Let's stop the bastards and get paid doing it' but let's not pretend you have the moral high ground when your position is basically 'Who cares about murdering women and children horribly? It's not like it's happening to anyone *I* care about." You might think my horse is high, but it's really just a matter of perspective.

I know Republicans like to talk about 'Saint Reagan'. Let me bring you a speaker that the left beatified:

"To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." - John F Kennedy.

Machiavelli wrote:How Many Kinds Of Soldiery There Are, And Concerning Mercenaries

HAVING discoursed particularly on the characteristics of such principalities as in the beginning I proposed to discuss, and having considered in some degree the causes of their being good or bad, and having shown the methods by which many have sought to acquire them and to hold them, it now remains for me to discuss generally the means of offence and defence which belong to each of them.

We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms.

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; 1 and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

And if it be urged that whoever is armed will act in the same way, whether mercenary or not, I reply that when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens, and when one is sent who does not turn out satisfactorily, it ought to recall him, and when one is worthy, to hold him by the laws so that he does not leave the command. And experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage; and it is more difficult to bring a republic, armed with its own arms, under the sway of one of its citizens than it is to bring one armed with foreign arms. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzers are completely armed and quite free.

Of ancient mercenaries, for example, there are the Carthaginians, who were oppressed by their mercenary soldiers after the first war with the Romans, although the Carthaginians had their own citizens for captains. After the death of Epaminondas, Philip of Macedon was made captain of their soldiers by the Thebans, and after victory he took away their liberty.

Duke Filippo being dead, the Milanese enlisted Francesco Sforza against the Venetians, and he, having overcome the enemy at Caravaggio, allied himself with them to crush the Milanese, his masters. His father, Sforza, having been engaged by Queen Johanna of Naples, left her unprotected, so that she was forced to throw herself into the arms of the King of Aragon, in order to save her kingdom. And if the Venetians and Florentines formerly extended their dominions by these arms, and yet their captains did not make themselves princes, but have defended them, I reply that the Florentines in this case have been favoured by chance, for of the able captains, of whom they might have stood in fear, some have not conquered, some have been opposed, and others have turned their ambitions elsewhere. One who did not conquer was Giovanni Acuto, 2 and since he did not conquer his fidelity cannot be proved; but every one will acknowledge that, had he conquered, the Florentines would have stood at his discretion. Sforza had the Bracceschi always against him, so they watched each other. Francesco turned his ambition to Lombardy; Braccio against the Church and the kingdom of Naples. But let us come to that which happened a short while ago. The Florentines appointed as their captain Paolo Vitelli, a most prudent man, who from a private position had risen to the greatest renown. If this man had taken Pisa, nobody can deny that it would have been proper for the Florentines to keep in with him, for if he became the soldier of their enemies they had no means of resisting, and if they held to him they must obey him. The Venetians, if their achievements are considered, will be seen to have acted safely and gloriously so long as they sent to war their own men, when with armed gentlemen and plebeians they did valiantly. This was before they turned to enterprises on land, but when they began to fight on land they forsook this virtue and followed the custom of Italy. And in the beginning of their expansion on land, through not having much territory, and because of their great reputation, they had not much to fear from their captains; but when they expanded, as under Carmignola, they had a taste of this mistake; for, having found him a most valiant man (they beat the Duke of Milan under his leadership), and, on the other hand, knowing how lukewarm he was in the war, they feared they would no longer conquer under him, and for this reason they were not willing, nor were they able, to let him go; and so, not to lose again that which they had acquired, they were compelled, in order to secure themselves, to murder him. They had afterwards for their captains Bartolomeo da Bergamo, Roberto da San Severino, the Count of Pitigliano, and the like, under whom they had to dread loss and not gain, as happened afterwards at Vaila, where in one battle they lost that which in eight hundred years they had acquired with so much trouble. Because from such arms conquests come but slowly, long delayed and inconsiderable, but the losses sudden and portentous.

And as with these examples I have reached Italy, which has been ruled for many years by mercenaries, I wish to discuss them more seriously, in order that, having seen their rise and progress, one may be better prepared to counteract them. You must understand that the empire has recently come to be repudiated in Italy, that the Pope has acquired more temporal power, and that Italy has been divided up into more states, for the reason that many of the great cities took up arms against their nobles, who, formerly favoured by the emperor, were oppressing them, whilst the Church was favouring them so as to gain authority in temporal power: in many others their citizens became princes. From this it came to pass that Italy fell partly into the hands of the Church and of republics, and, the Church consisting of priests and the republic of citizens unaccustomed to arms, both commenced to enlist foreigners.

The first who gave renown to this soldiery was Alberigo da Conio, a native of the Romagna. From the school of this man sprang, among others, Braccio and Sforza, who in their time were the arbiters of Italy. After these came all the other captains who till now have directed the arms of Italy; and the end of all their valour has been, that she has been overrun by Charles, robbed by Louis, ravaged by Ferdinand, and insulted by the Switzers. The principle that has guided them has been, first, to lower the credit of infantry so that they might increase their own. They did this because, subsisting on their pay and without territory, they were unable to support many soldiers, and a few infantry did not give them any authority; so they were led to employ cavalry, with a moderate force of which they were maintained and honoured; and affairs were brought to such a pass that, in an army of twenty thousand soldiers, there were not to be found two thousand foot soldiers. They had, besides this, used every art to lessen fatigue and danger to themselves and their soldiers, not killing in the fray, but taking prisoners and liberating without ransom. They did not attack towns at night, nor did the garrisons of the towns attack encampments at night; they did not surround the camp either with stockade or ditch, nor did they campaign in the winter. All these things were permitted by their military rules, and devised by them to avoid, as I have said, both fatigue and dangers; thus they have brought Italy to slavery and contempt.

cadbren wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

cadbren wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?

Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?

Spurious was probably the wrong word. What I meant was that the attacks of Hesbollah have not been aimed at the West so Iran's support of them or not is irrelevant.

And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. .

As Beirut is in the Middle East and not the West that is not a valid rebuttal. Israel is not a Western nation, the Arab-Israeli wars are a middle eastern conflict, go consult an atlas if you don't believe me. Constant meddling in those affairs led to 911, and despite the mostly Saudi involvement, little was ever done in regards Saudi Arabia.

 schadenfreude wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.

Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.

On comparing the 4 deaths in Libya versus the Iraq war 51,139 casualties 4,805 of which were deaths.

A) Numbers speak volumes which makes bush over 10,000% better at killing Americans through incompetence than Obama
B) The 4 casualties in Libya knew what they were getting into just as much as the 51,139 casualties in Iraq knew what they were getting into
C) The incompetence of Bush in Iraq was plunging the nation into an unnecessary land war that did nothing to improve national security.
D) The incompetence of Obama in Libya was a failed to attempt to obfuscate and spin what happened in Libya. I don't fault him in failing to commit the US military into a strike without congressional approval when the ambassador was under attack and Libyan authorities were unsuccessfully attempting to regain control on the situation. I don't believe the US should bomb Syria, I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and I don't think we should have invaded Libyan air space to level part of Benghazi with air power in an effort that might have saved our ambassador.

I really dislike Obama's domestic policies, left of center agenda, failure to close GITMO, successful assaults on the 4th amendment, killing of entire families with drone strikes, killing 2 American citizens with drone strikes, or his plans to continue the Clinton doctrine with Syria. Obama is a bad president, but GW Bush was the worst president we had in 100 years who was only good at bsing congress in a post 9/11 political environment. There were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded because sanctions worked, weapons inspectors worked, and because even with a binary weapon system the shelf life of the primary component in a binary Sarin weapons system is only 5 years.
O
Last but not least I find it terrible inconsistent to support the Iraq war because it's a mad regime that might have WMD there and not support a full ground invasion of Syria when there is a mad regime that definitely has WMD. If your consistent and didn't support either war that's a good thing. If don't want a war in Syria because you matured and learned a lesson form the Iraq war that's a good thing, and not at all inconsistent. if you supported the Iraq war at the time but have concluded in hindsight that it was a bad idea that's also a good thing. If you still to this day support the Iraq war then you've lost all credibility in criticizing Obama'so war and should go sit at the kids table while the adults talk.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

The problem is that it isn't true. It is another false comparison as you scramble for the moral high ground and attempt to Godwin the thread yet again because it makes for nice sound bites. We aren't facing an enemy that is committing genocide in an industrial scale, we're dealing with a civil war. Cute Kennedy quote also, sadly irrelevant though as Syria is not under colonial control. It isn't throwing off colonial shackles. It is engaged in a dirty civil war which, again, has no stand out candidates to back. We'll probably lob a few cruise missiles weeks after the alleged gas attack and the civil war will continue.

cadbren wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

cadbren wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Aside from spurious accusations of supporting Hesbollah or whoever, what has Iran actually done against the West?

Only 'spurious accusations? Seriously?

Spurious was probably the wrong word. What I meant was that the attacks of Hesbollah have not been aimed at the West so Iran's support of them or not is irrelevant.

And that statement would be wrong too. You may want to look up the 1983 bombing in Beirut which very specifically targeted US marines and French troops. .

As Beirut is in the Middle East and not the West that is not a valid rebuttal. Israel is not a Western nation, the Arab-Israeli wars are a middle eastern conflict, go consult an atlas if you don't believe me. Constant meddling in those affairs led to 911, and despite the mostly Saudi involvement, little was ever done in regards Saudi Arabia.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
As was mention before. If we do put "Boots on Ground" (I'm retired) and we find out some of those WMD's were from Iraq. Best put the USS Lincoln and the USS Reagan side by side for one massive BBQ paid for by Bush. All this time we spent looking in the wrong desert. If we do put boots on ground in Syria. All that equipment we left behind in Iraq we might be able to get back. Generators alone can pretty much power ten divisions and a couple major airfields....

And if you cause the overthrow of the current regime, find no WMDs, end up helping a radical islamic group get into power, then what? We know what. You'll say, "Gee shucks, guess we goofed there, hyuk hyuk, but we still did the right thing."
Meanwhile Afghani translators and their families have been allowed into my country because despite the "successful" mission there, these guys wont be safe once our forces leave. I believe similar arrangements have been made for Afghanis who cooperated with US and other coalition forces.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.

Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.

No, Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 1980s and the world looked on and did nothing.
Even after Desert Storm when they could have gone in and ousted Saddam and arrested him for gassing the Kurds they didn't.
It wasn't until after the 2003 invasion that Saddam was suddenly found to be a war criminal and put on trial for gassing the Kurds and that was only done to destroy the regime.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Syria is signatory to the NPT.

Besides Israel can probably be relied upon to keep any suspicious activities neutered, Operation orchard style.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
...And Syria, while not under colonial control, is still people trying to overthrow a tyrant in favor of democracy, even if it's a democracy the US doesn't agree with, which was what Kennedy was talking about.

 Jihadin wrote:
As was mention before. If we do put "Boots on Ground" (I'm retired) and we find out some of those WMD's were from Iraq. Best put the USS Lincoln and the USS Reagan side by side for one massive BBQ paid for by Bush.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Mission Accomplished... eh?

And there's the whembly "make it about Benghazi!" post I've been waiting for...

 CptJake wrote:


Seriously? Specifically targeting US and French troops is NOT an attack on western interests?

cadbren wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Seriously? Specifically targeting US and French troops is NOT an attack on western interests?

I didn't say Western interests though did I? I said the West and therein lies the problem. Some wealthy types decide that they can make more money by dealing with a different faction so they determine to unset the current regime to pave the way for their proxy to take over. These are geopolitical issues and not national ones. The US and French forces were an army of occupation, they weren't tourists. It doesn't matter why they were there, they weren't in their own countries when they got attacked. They were there in large numbers to forceably affect change. Someone else had a different idea of their presence and acted - successfully at that because those nations withdrew as a result. To put it bluntly, they went there to wage war and got killed.

In a couple of days it will have been 12 years since the planes went into the buildings, it seems that radical islam has become stronger in that period, if you think this is not correct then please state how it's been weakened.