Thought some of you might enjoy this.

futures2008

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 6, 2008
3,482
0
0
Austin, TX
Here are some words from another pretty good president from early in our lifetimes.

From his 1st inaugural address:

Realizing that common sense and common decency alike dictate the futility of appeasement, we shall never try to placate an aggressor by the false and wicked bargain of trading honor for security. Americans, indeed all free men, remember that in the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains.
In memory ...
 

KBrown

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
37,638
2,643
0
Great speeches. I certainly miss the days when America sought peace, when the government was functional and we had an "us vs them" mentality that unified us all.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,911
11,648
0
"we shall never try to placate an aggressor by the false and wicked bargain of trading honor for security"

Uhh...no, we won't do that. But we WILL placate an aggressor by secretly selling weapons to them so we can fund a private mercenary army to overthrow a government in Central America.

Sheesh.
 

Bitterwhiteguy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
28,520
5
0
"we shall never try to placate an aggressor by the false and wicked bargain of trading honor for security"

Uhh...no, we won't do that. But we WILL placate an aggressor by secretly selling weapons to them so we can fund a private mercenary army to overthrow a government in Central America.

Sheesh.
Maybe this is what KB meant: if we seek out war on two fronts it cancels itself out like a double negative, so it's like we're seeking peace.
 

KBrown

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
37,638
2,643
0
When was that?
I do remember a time when the two longest wars in the history of the US weren't both happening at the same time. I also remember a time when the US being in a war was felt by the average citizen.
 

KBrown

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
37,638
2,643
0
"we shall never try to placate an aggressor by the false and wicked bargain of trading honor for security"

Uhh...no, we won't do that. But we WILL placate an aggressor by secretly selling weapons to them so we can fund a private mercenary army to overthrow a government in Central America.

Sheesh.
A friend once said the US foreign policy is akin to throwing a loaded gun at the feet of someone and saying "Go ahead... Pick it up." And then blowing them away when they do.
 

Bitterwhiteguy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
28,520
5
0
I do remember a time when the two longest wars in the history of the US weren't both happening at the same time. I also remember a time when the US being in a war was felt by the average citizen.
And yet, during nearly the entire time you've been alive, the US has been in a war of some sort. You say the US is seeking peace, I say you're being suckered by lip service.
 

KBrown

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
37,638
2,643
0
And yet, during nearly the entire time you've been alive, the US has been in a war of some sort. You say the US is seeking peace, I say you're being suckered by lip service.
There was a pretty long lag after Vietnam. The country had had enough of conflict for a while. Invading Panama was a huge deal at the time, today it wouldn't warrant the front page. What was that stupid island we invaded under Reagan? And of course we bombed Libya. But none of those were much of a war, so it backs up the quote... The US would prefer peace, will negotiate for peace but when pushed the US is more than willing to back up words with action.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,911
11,648
0
We invaded Grenada...we armed rebels all over the place...and we were in a Cold War. The 80s were NOT a period of peace at all.
 

Bitterwhiteguy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
28,520
5
0
There was a pretty long lag after Vietnam. The country had had enough of conflict for a while. Invading Panama was a huge deal at the time, today it wouldn't warrant the front page. What was that stupid island we invaded under Reagan? And of course we bombed Libya. But none of those were much of a war, so it backs up the quote... The US would prefer peace, will negotiate for peace but when pushed the US is more than willing to back up words with action.
Your comment("when pushed") supposes the US isn't the aggressor, which is generally not the case since at least WW2. We have actively promoted war either directly or through surrogates for decades. We've been either fighting somebody or paying/supplying somebody else to fight for as long as either you or I have been alive. If you want to restrict your definition to officially declared wars and believe that covers the extent of US military intervention, that's your choice, but it isn't an accurate portrayal of our military interventionist history.
 

KBrown

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
37,638
2,643
0
Your comment("when pushed") supposes the US isn't the aggressor, which is generally not the case since at least WW2. We have actively promoted war either directly or through surrogates for decades. We've been either fighting somebody or paying/supplying somebody else to fight for as long as either you or I have been alive. If you want to restrict your definition to officially declared wars and believe that covers the extent of US military intervention, that's your choice, but it isn't an accurate portrayal of our military interventionist history.
Don't get me wrong, the US needs to quit being the world's police, I'm long since tired of it.

That said, I don't think the US is an aggressor or empire builder by any stretch. The US acts in its best interest and tries diplomacy (see North Korea) sometimes too long. And in other cases the US resorts to military a little to freely.
 

seadaddy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
2,738
2
0
We had a damn good reason for the war in Afghanistan . . . it occurred on Sept. 11th many years ago. We have lost the f*cking war and Barry is about to pull the troops back home. This country, thanks to spineless libs, doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to fight an extended war any more. The Russians know it, the terrorists know it, the Chinese know it, the North Koreans know it and the Iranians know it. Barry is talking serious nuke reductions and cutting defense budgets to pay for all the give away programs so the Dems can retain power indefinitely. We've lost the respect of many enemies and allies alike.
 

Kahoona

Member Who Talks
Mar 31, 2013
269
0
0
We invaded Grenada...we armed rebels all over the place...and we were in a Cold War. The 80s were NOT a period of peace at all.
Invaded ???????

=))=))=))

And we had been in a Cold War forever, Reagan ended it.

As for the 80's being a time of war, BS. The bad guys knew better than to fluck with Ronaldus Maximus.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,911
11,648
0
You mean like the guys in Lebanon that killed a couple hundred Marines?

Please. Don't strain yourself.


PS Reagan didn't end the Cold War. Gorbachev did.
 

Bitterwhiteguy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
28,520
5
0
We had a damn good reason for the war in Afghanistan . . . it occurred on Sept. 11th many years ago. We have lost the f*cking war and Barry is about to pull the troops back home. This country, thanks to spineless libs, doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to fight an extended war any more. The Russians know it, the terrorists know it, the Chinese know it, the North Koreans know it and the Iranians know it. Barry is talking serious nuke reductions and cutting defense budgets to pay for all the give away programs so the Dems can retain power indefinitely. We've lost the respect of many enemies and allies alike.
Holy f*cking ****, you did not just blame losing the war on Obama & "libs". The war was lost 6 years before Obama ever took office when Dubya & Co decided to hold back units & armaments in favor of a build-up to invade Iraq. If you don't believe me, go read up on Operation Anaconda and all the units the military was requesting be deployed in Afghanistan, but were denied because they were being saved for that f*cking boondoggle of an operation to the west of where the actual terrorists were. We as a country took our eye off the ball. Iraq never should've happened, our military might should've been focused on Afghanistan. That all happened before the current president was even in elected office, and no amount of your revisionist history can change the fact that Dubya & his crew are the ones that f*cked the Afghanistan war(which was authorized 518-3 by both parties in Congress, in case you forgot) less than 6 months after they started it. If we're going to start tossing around blame for the failures in Afghanistan, they start in 2002 at the White House.
 

cctxfan

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
21,249
3,486
0
Austin, TX
Holy f*cking ****, you did not just blame losing the war on Obama & "libs". The war was lost 6 years before Obama ever took office when Dubya & Co decided to hold back units & armaments in favor of a build-up to invade Iraq. If you don't believe me, go read up on Operation Anaconda and all the units the military was requesting be deployed in Afghanistan, but were denied because they were being saved for that f*cking boondoggle of an operation to the west of where the actual terrorists were. We as a country took our eye off the ball. Iraq never should've happened, our military might should've been focused on Afghanistan. That all happened before the current president was even in elected office, and no amount of your revisionist history can change the fact that Dubya & his crew are the ones that f*cked the Afghanistan war(which was authorized 518-3 by both parties in Congress, in case you forgot) less than 6 months after they started it. If we're going to start tossing around blame for the failures in Afghanistan, they start in 2002 at the White House.
Not to mention that North Korea developed and tested a nuclear bomb under Bush's watch (not that any president could have really done anything about it unless China and Russia were willing to get serious about NK). Speaking of Russia, why don't we ask them how well their little war in Afghanistan went?

Seadaddy, you do realize that we can't stay in Afghanistan forever. Our mission was to topple the Taliban and kill/capture as many AQ terrorists as we could. And we've done that. The problem with areas like Afghanistan that have been ruled by tribal factions for centuries is that they aren't set up for democracy. We can't win the war there, leave, and the country will purge itself of all centuries of rule and tradition and become a bastion of democracy. In places like Libya, Iraq, and Syria, it's possible. Hell, it's even possible in Iran. But Afghanistan? No way.
 

mdhorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
5,296
0
0
Holy f*cking ****, you did not just blame losing the war on Obama & "libs". The war was lost 6 years before Obama ever took office when Dubya & Co decided to hold back units & armaments in favor of a build-up to invade Iraq. If you don't believe me, go read up on Operation Anaconda and all the units the military was requesting be deployed in Afghanistan, but were denied because they were being saved for that f*cking boondoggle of an operation to the west of where the actual terrorists were. We as a country took our eye off the ball. Iraq never should've happened, our military might should've been focused on Afghanistan. That all happened before the current president was even in elected office, and no amount of your revisionist history can change the fact that Dubya & his crew are the ones that f*cked the Afghanistan war(which was authorized 518-3 by both parties in Congress, in case you forgot) less than 6 months after they started it. If we're going to start tossing around blame for the failures in Afghanistan, they start in 2002 at the White House.
don't forget that at the time too, if you didn't go along with the war, you were Anti-American, against freedom, that whole if you're not with us, you're against us bullchit labeling. This was pushed through as fast as possible to reduce dissent or any stalling.
 

mdhorn

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
5,296
0
0
Not to mention that North Korea developed and tested a nuclear bomb under Bush's watch (not that any president could have really done anything about it unless China and Russia were willing to get serious about NK). Speaking of Russia, why don't we ask them how well their little war in Afghanistan went?

Seadaddy, you do realize that we can't stay in Afghanistan forever. Our mission was to topple the Taliban and kill/capture as many AQ terrorists as we could. And we've done that. The problem with areas like Afghanistan that have been ruled by tribal factions for centuries is that they aren't set up for democracy. We can't win the war there, leave, and the country will purge itself of all centuries of rule and tradition and become a bastion of democracy. In places like Libya, Iraq, and Syria, it's possible. Hell, it's even possible in Iran. But Afghanistan? No way.
You clearly forgot MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Yeah it was Iraq, but I'm pretty sure they thought Afghanistan was sewn up too. So, why are we still there? At what point do we cut our losses? The only thing unifying these countries is their fight against the US. Leave, and if history is an indication, they return to fighting each other.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,911
11,648
0
Right.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!!!!"

And then....what? Wait, he did. Why was that, exactly? Because he was afraid Ronnie would beat him up? Afraid we were going to invade Russia? No! He did it because it was the right thing to do, and because they were no longer able to hold on to the empire they built.


PS I love flags.

**==**==**==**==**==**==**==**==**==**==
 

seadaddy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
2,738
2
0
Holy f*cking ****, you did not just blame losing the war on Obama & "libs". The war was lost 6 years before Obama ever took office when Dubya & Co decided to hold back units & armaments in favor of a build-up to invade Iraq. If you don't believe me, go read up on Operation Anaconda and all the units the military was requesting be deployed in Afghanistan, but were denied because they were being saved for that f*cking boondoggle of an operation to the west of where the actual terrorists were. We as a country took our eye off the ball. Iraq never should've happened, our military might should've been focused on Afghanistan. That all happened before the current president was even in elected office, and no amount of your revisionist history can change the fact that Dubya & his crew are the ones that f*cked the Afghanistan war(which was authorized 518-3 by both parties in Congress, in case you forgot) less than 6 months after they started it. If we're going to start tossing
around blame for the failures in Afghanistan, they start in 2002 at the White House.
When the Japs killed 3,000 of our servicemen, we paid them back with Little Boy and Fat Man. When the Islamist terrorists murdered 3,000 innocent civilian men, women, and children on 9/11 all the politicians were for kicking ass for about . . . one, maybe two years. Then our commitment for effective retaliation went out the window . . . led by many Dem politicians who voted for the war. If we are hit with a little nuke, chemical, or biological device taking out thousands more . . . we will likely repeat this scenario unless we vote in a real leader. Odds are we will get Billary and be f*cked for another eight years getting the sh*t kicked out of us by the punk terrorists along he way. Stay tuned.
 

Hiphopster

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Mar 12, 2012
15,482
1,860
0
Then our commitment for effective retaliation went out the window . . . led by many Dem politicians who voted for the war. Stay tuned.
It should NEVER be about retaliation. It should be about justice AND preventing it from happening again. I remember being enraged for a few days after the attack and appreciating that W didn't start lobbing missiles and bombs over to Afghanistan. If only he hadn't done the Iraq thing, maybe his presidency wouldn't have derailed as spectacularly as it did.

Also, for how many years are the American people supposed to be funding this little war of yours? If you say as long as it takes, then I don't want to hear one complaint about the deficit, debt, or flailing economy from you--ever.
 

TrueLonghornFan

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
32,913
10,745
0
It should NEVER be about retaliation. It should be about justice AND preventing it from happening again. I remember being enraged for a few days after the attack and appreciating that W didn't start lobbing missiles and bombs over to Afghanistan. If only he hadn't done the Iraq thing, maybe his presidency wouldn't have derailed as spectacularly as it did.

Also, for how many years are the American people supposed to be funding this little war of yours? If you say as long as it takes, then I don't want to hear one complaint about the deficit, debt, or flailing economy from you--ever.
You know what? I agree with this entire post.
 

Bitterwhiteguy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
28,520
5
0
When the Japs killed 3,000 of our servicemen, we paid them back with Little Boy and Fat Man. When the Islamist terrorists murdered 3,000 innocent civilian men, women, and children on 9/11 all the politicians were for kicking ass for about . . . one, maybe two years. Then our commitment for effective retaliation went out the window . . . led by many Dem politicians who voted for the war. If we are hit with a little nuke, chemical, or biological device taking out thousands more . . . we will likely repeat this scenario unless we vote in a real leader. Odds are we will get Billary and be f*cked for another eight years getting the sh*t kicked out of us by the punk terrorists along he way. Stay tuned.
Remind me again, who was in charge one, maybe two years later? I'm going to give you a hint, it was the same party in the WH, Senate, and House. You're right though, they totally tried to kill the war funding. That's why the 2006 war funding was passed by the Senate 80-14 & the House 280-142, because there were 80 GOP & 14 Dems in the Senate and 280 GOP & 142 Dems in the House. Wait, no there's not.

I'll give you credit for being right about one thing, there definitely was no real leader in 2002. If there was, we wouldn't have entered into Iraq in the first place, gotten more of our own soldiers killed than the civilians AQ took out on 9/11, and placed $1 TRILLION more debt on our heads than we needed to. But that's obviously the Dems' fault too, right?
 

cctxfan

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
21,249
3,486
0
Austin, TX
When the Japs killed 3,000 of our servicemen, we paid them back with Little Boy and Fat Man. When the Islamist terrorists murdered 3,000 innocent civilian men, women, and children on 9/11 all the politicians were for kicking ass for about . . . one, maybe two years. Then our commitment for effective retaliation went out the window . . . led by many Dem politicians who voted for the war. If we are hit with a little nuke, chemical, or biological device taking out thousands more . . . we will likely repeat this scenario unless we vote in a real leader. Odds are we will get Billary and be f*cked for another eight years getting the sh*t kicked out of us by the punk terrorists along he way. Stay tuned.
I see we've found the board's biggest chicken hawk. One day you'll finally realize that a war in Afghanistan can't ever be won. Or maybe not...
 

Bitterwhiteguy

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
28,520
5
0
I see we've found the board's biggest chicken hawk. One day you'll finally realize that a war in Afghanistan can't ever be won. Or maybe not...
Seadaddy isn't a chickenhawk, he's served. You can question him about a lot of things, but don't question his service.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,911
11,648
0
When the Japs killed 3,000 of our servicemen, we paid them back with Little Boy and Fat Man. When the Islamist terrorists murdered 3,000 innocent civilian men, women, and children on 9/11 all the politicians were for kicking ass for about . . . one, maybe two years. Then our commitment for effective retaliation went out the window . . . led by many Dem politicians who voted for the war. If we are hit with a little nuke, chemical, or biological device taking out thousands more . . . we will likely repeat this scenario unless we vote in a real leader. Odds are we will get Billary and be f*cked for another eight years getting the sh*t kicked out of us by the punk terrorists along he way. Stay tuned.
Wow are you misguided.

1) We didn't hit the Japanese with A-bombs to get even with them for Pearl Harbor.

2) You might want to consider who was unable to track down bin Laden for 7 years, and who was able to track him down and kill him.
 

JG

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
60,911
11,648
0
Last I checked there were SEAL teams when Bush was in office too. He just sent them to the wrong place.