The AM Forum
March 28, 2024, 09:33:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do NOT screw with Navy SEALS  (Read 100546 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #75 on: April 19, 2009, 02:09:27 PM »

after a whole little thought "Shoot To Kill"

Or keep a pot of boiling oil on the deck
Logged
KA1ZGC
Guest
« Reply #76 on: April 19, 2009, 02:22:59 PM »

Admit it, Frank: if the previous aministration were still in power, you'd be hell-bent against using any military force anywhere for any reason whatsoever, just like you have been for the last eight years.

Now, suddenly, you think we'll automatically win every skirmish we engage in using the exact same soldiers, sailors, and weapons we've been using right along? Not just a little blinded by our hatred of one man, are we?
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #77 on: April 19, 2009, 04:13:28 PM »

That is bull crap. I have no problem with this country defending itself and spent most of my working life making sure the hardware was the best.
I guess the last clown would use this as a reason to invade Poland.
Logged
KA1ZGC
Guest
« Reply #78 on: April 19, 2009, 04:29:53 PM »

Thank you. You just proved my point.
Logged
Ed/KB1HYS
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1852



« Reply #79 on: April 19, 2009, 10:24:39 PM »

Lotsa armchair warriors argue about how to do a job they don't have to do...  or couldn't do.

Defending a ship by attempting to shoot down on a man climbing up a rope along your hull means that your head, and most of your torso is exposed to enemy fire since any of the boarders can spray an area target with an AK-47, it only takes one bullet to kill the defender who's exposed.  It only takes a few to keep the defender pinned down behind the rail, assuming the rail is substantial enough to stop the rounds.  It always makes me a bit angry to hear folks talk about how they would do this or that, when they have never been under fire.   

Killing the three pirates made everyone feel better (well except the pirates possibly) but really did nothing to stop or deter the whole operation. Those Seals did a great job, quick, clean and well done, but their job was to get that captain away from the guys that had him, not end an entire large scale operation.  I would bet that there was probably 10 new volunteers for each one of those that were shot.  Remember that to the population they support, THEY were the heros there.
So we're back to the option of large scale military strikes against civilian population centers, which the general american public would not stand for, especally after CNN and Co started publishing pics of mutilated children hit by US ordinance (or the local clan war ordinance, accuracy in reporting isn't a priority with the media of late). 

So the somalis have no reason to fear us, as they will accept some casualties as the cost of diong business, and we will not do what we need to to end the operations. (niether militarily nor through humanitarian actionsm and both would be required to really end it).  What would end the pirate operation?  Go in there like the Mafia. Make them an offer they couldn't refuse, quit operations, and we will put you to work so you can earn a decent living, or we'll kill you. Period. 
 It's been my experience that MOST people that have the ability to put provide for themselves through peacefull means will.  Some won't though,  so you've got to kill them eventually.  Especially now that all the enemy combatants are protected by the Constitution I guess that means take no prisonersm err I mean no one surrenders. Roll Eyes

Maybe the UN will "strongly protest" the actions of the pirates, and put sanctions against the somalis... Like anyone trades with them anyway.


Logged

73 de Ed/KB1HYS
Happiness is Hot Tubes, Cold 807's, and warm room filling AM Sound.
 "I've spent three quarters of my life trying to figure out how to do a $50 job for $.50, the rest I spent trying to come up with the $0.50" - D. Gingery
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2009, 11:05:26 PM »

I'm not for putting our troops on the ground in any of these rat holes but have no problem spanking bad guys from the air or by remote control.
They take unarmed ships and we shoot at them so they can't shoot back sounds like a fair game to me.
Beats having 10,000 Americans limping around with missing legs or worse yet 6 feet under.
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2009, 11:10:45 PM »

Sure kill innocent people from afar. That's noble. I can't see killing anyone for big shipping. There's clearly a money connection here. Bring the B52s home. They should never had left this country in the first place. Outside of the USA, they are tool of imperialism.
Logged
W1UJR
Guest
« Reply #82 on: April 19, 2009, 11:16:09 PM »

It's been my experience that MOST people that have the ability to put provide for themselves through peacefull means will. 


I know that you mean well with that Ed, but it was that same thinking that almost lost Europe to the Nazis in the 1940s. Some folks, or in this case, governments, are just evil, and need to be destroyed.
The jackboot of Nazism was defeated, but the jackboot of Islam is marching across the world.

As for Somalia, and much of Africa for that matter, those folks can't provide for themselves for one reason, they have a value system that oppresses human liberty and freedom. Liberty is a right given by the Almighty God, it is the rule of evil men and evil institutions which takes that God given right away.

Poor nations do things to keep themselves poor, which is why throwing money at the problem is simply a waste. Trillions have already been spent in Africa, and that country is as backwards today was it was 50 years ago. In fact, it could be strongly argued, that Africa was actually better off UNDER colonial rule than it is today.

The sad fact is that liberty and personal responsibility are advanced concepts, and many in the world simply are not cognitively able to grasp and implement such. It is not our job to save the world, it is our job to preserve, protect and defend the United States.

Our Founding Fathers warned us to avoid foreign "entanglements", and every time we've not followed those words, our country has suffered for it. Unlike Europe in the 1940s, the fate of Somalia has nothing to do with the United States, and we have no business solving problems the Somalis must solve for themselves.

As for those evil men who chose to steal human beings as a source of income, they got exactly what they deserved. But they have an even bigger surprise awaiting them in the afterlife.
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10057



« Reply #83 on: April 20, 2009, 12:48:00 AM »

Our Founding Fathers warned us to avoid foreign "entanglements", and every time we've not followed those words, our country has suffered for it.
But we seem to have a collective learning disability.  Following the VietNam debacle, we managed to get ourselves mired in Iraq.
Quote
Unlike Europe in the 1940s, the fate of Somalia has nothing to do with the United States, and we have no business solving problems the Somalis must solve for themselves.
Agreed, but that does not extend to tolerating piracy against our own ships on the high seas.

Quote
As for those evil men who chose to steal human beings as a source of income, they got exactly what they deserved. But they have an even bigger surprise awaiting them in the afterlife.
You mean to say they won't be getting their fourteen virgins as promised?
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
K9ACT
Guest
« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2009, 01:10:39 AM »


You say that as though holding people hostage at gunpoint until your demands are met is something other than a terrorist action. Well, you're completely wrong about that. Sorry, Jack.


Responding to all this point by point would turn into a dissertation  on reading comprehension.

I will respond to just two of your points.

A.  Bringing the Cole into this discussion was a red herring and I should not have risen to the bait, so to speak.
That is a military problem related to official rules of engagement which are irrelevant to the pirate situation.

B.  These pirates do not suddenly appear like the Terminator on deck, in the dead of night.

They chase after their prey in broad daylight.  The prey try to out run and out maneuver the pirates using tactics that don't work very well but are about all the management is willing to expend to get rid of them.

The successful pirates eventually pull along side the ship and start haggling with the crew and eventually board the ship with primitive tools like grappling hooks and ropes.  The crew stands around like a bunch of sheep heading for the butcher and get what such behavior deserves.

Lately, they are trying a new gambit of locking themselves up in the engine room to buy some time but this is rather futile as they essentially turn the ship over to the pirates.

It does not take a rocket scientist or a bunch of Navy Seals to visualize the obvious advantage the crew would have if they had a few simple weapons to prevent boarding.  And, I am speaking of American crews of American ships.  The rest of the world can and should solve their own problems.  As a point of interest, I believe these very few aid ships are the only ships flying US flags anyway so it's not a big problem for us.

I am starting to sound like a broken record so this will be my last.

js
Logged
KA1ZGC
Guest
« Reply #85 on: April 20, 2009, 01:56:43 AM »

I will respond to just two of your points.

A.  Bringing the Cole into this discussion was a red herring and I should not have risen to the bait, so to speak.
That is a military problem related to official rules of engagement which are irrelevant to the pirate situation.

I was responding to the assertion that American-flagged ships only get attacked in the high seas. That's not a red herring, just an annoying fact.

Rules of engagement would have to be crafted for the merchant marines, too. That's the other reason I mentioned the Cole. Just giving them guns doesn't solve anything by itself, you need to decide who can shoot who, when. Yes, even on the open seas. Don't ask "why", the answer is "for the same reason the Navy has rules of engagement".

The successful pirates eventually pull along side the ship and start haggling with the crew and eventually board the ship with primitive tools like grappling hooks and ropes.  The crew stands around like a bunch of sheep heading for the butcher and get what such behavior deserves.

Again with the eyewitness testimony, Jack? Let me reiterate: you weren't there. You have no earthly clue what the crew does in those situations; and if you're just going to talk trash about them to make your argument seem more valid, don't bother talking about them at all.

I am starting to sound like a broken record so this will be my last.

Good idea.
Logged
Ed/KB1HYS
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1852



« Reply #86 on: April 20, 2009, 09:33:36 AM »

Sure kill innocent people from afar. That's noble. I can't see killing anyone for big shipping. There's clearly a money connection here. Bring the B52s home. They should never had left this country in the first place. Outside of the USA, they are tool of imperialism.

Funny, but those big $ shipping that you decry are moving humanitarian aid (well the US flagged ones are).   Lotsa money there I'm sure.

"If you would have peace, be thou prepared for war."  Is as true today as it was in ancient Rome.  Believing that everyone just wants to get along is lunacy, and deadly in todays world.
 Why do some people in this country fail to understand that there are other people in the world who just want them DEAD. Because they do, period.
These same people love to blame America when we take care of such threats.

I'm sure they also believe that the Iranians are making Uranium for 'peaceful power generation" too.  and that if we just make nice, the other fellows wont shoot us.   Once there is a mushroom cloud over an American city, these same idiots will be screaming for the blood of the people who they prevented from protecting them in the first place. 

That's the sort of academic "Disney-it's-a-small-world" mentality that gets people killed.  Reality is tough, Wolves eat Bambi in real life.  People kill people in real life, because they want to.  Humans are an inherently violent species, that have spent more effort killing ourselves than in any other endevor.  If you think a few friendly words on paper will change a million years of evolution, good luck.   Any of us who survive the coming holocost will try and see you get a decent burial.

It's been my experience that MOST people that have the ability to put provide for themselves through peacefull means will. 

I know that you mean well with that Ed, but it was that same thinking that almost lost Europe to the Nazis in the 1940s. Some folks, or in this case, governments, are just evil, and need to be destroyed.
The jackboot of Nazism was defeated, but the jackboot of Islam is marching across the world.

As for Somalia, and much of Africa for that matter, those folks can't provide for themselves for one reason, they have a value system that oppresses human liberty and freedom. Liberty is a right given by the Almighty God, it is the rule of evil men and evil institutions which takes that God given right away.

Our Founding Fathers warned us to avoid foreign "entanglements", and every time we've not followed those words, our country has suffered for it. Unlike Europe in the 1940s, the fate of Somalia has nothing to do with the United States, and we have no business solving problems the Somalis must solve for themselves.


Yep, I agree, my following sentance was
Quote
" It's been my experience that MOST people that have the ability to put provide for themselves through peacefull means will.  Some won't though,  so you've got to kill them eventually. "


I do think however that keeping potential enemies at bay is a neccesary foreign entablement.   I'd rather fight them over there, than in my back yard.  Of course, if we were fighting them over here, I'm sure the peace loving liberal types would be decrying the slaughter of innocent terrorist lives as well.

All this is pointless however.  Our new leadership has already issued a retreat date (a retreat is when you leave the field of battle for any reason other than victory) for Iraq, and it won't be long before the same happens in Afgahnistan I'm sure.  We're empting guantanimo even though there is a high recitivism rate amongs those "poor detainees". 

Why do the liberal factions prefere to see dead americans over dead anyone else??

Once again washington swatts a fly to show that they "Did Something".


Logged

73 de Ed/KB1HYS
Happiness is Hot Tubes, Cold 807's, and warm room filling AM Sound.
 "I've spent three quarters of my life trying to figure out how to do a $50 job for $.50, the rest I spent trying to come up with the $0.50" - D. Gingery
K9ACT
Guest
« Reply #87 on: April 20, 2009, 10:28:05 AM »


Why do the liberal factions prefere to see dead americans over dead anyone else??


Cooler heads might ask why anyone would make such a patently absurd statement.

js
 
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #88 on: April 20, 2009, 10:42:06 AM »

I don't decry it Ed. I'm just taking the same flawed line of reasoning (so called) that the antiwar hypocrites did with Iraq - it's all about oil, etc. But now, it's OK to use military force to protect big business. That's why I call them hypocrites. If war is bad, then it's bad. If big business is bad, then it's bad. It can't be bad when one guy is president and not bad when another is. In other words, I'm illustrating how absurd these hypocritical anti-war types really are.

I'm all for big shipping and world-wide trade. And I'm for protecting our interests, where ever they may be. Quoting the no entangling alliances is bogus too. It's a world wide economy, with world-wide trade and world wide travel. Isolationism is not the answer now and has been since the invention of the airplane.


Sure kill innocent people from afar. That's noble. I can't see killing anyone for big shipping. There's clearly a money connection here. Bring the B52s home. They should never had left this country in the first place. Outside of the USA, they are tool of imperialism.

Funny, but those big $ shipping that you decry are moving humanitarian aid (well the US flagged ones are).   Lotsa money there I'm sure.

"If you would have peace, be thou prepared for war."  Is as true today as it was in ancient Rome.  Believing that everyone just wants to get along is lunacy, and deadly in todays world.
 Why do some people in this country fail to understand that there are other people in the world who just want them DEAD. Because they do, period.
These same people love to blame America when we take care of such threats.

I'm sure they also believe that the Iranians are making Uranium for 'peaceful power generation" too.  and that if we just make nice, the other fellows wont shoot us.   Once there is a mushroom cloud over an American city, these same idiots will be screaming for the blood of the people who they prevented from protecting them in the first place. 

That's the sort of academic "Disney-it's-a-small-world" mentality that gets people killed.  Reality is tough, Wolves eat Bambi in real life.  People kill people in real life, because they want to.  Humans are an inherently violent species, that have spent more effort killing ourselves than in any other endevor.  If you think a few friendly words on paper will change a million years of evolution, good luck.   Any of us who survive the coming holocost will try and see you get a decent burial.

It's been my experience that MOST people that have the ability to put provide for themselves through peacefull means will. 

I know that you mean well with that Ed, but it was that same thinking that almost lost Europe to the Nazis in the 1940s. Some folks, or in this case, governments, are just evil, and need to be destroyed.
The jackboot of Nazism was defeated, but the jackboot of Islam is marching across the world.

As for Somalia, and much of Africa for that matter, those folks can't provide for themselves for one reason, they have a value system that oppresses human liberty and freedom. Liberty is a right given by the Almighty God, it is the rule of evil men and evil institutions which takes that God given right away.

Our Founding Fathers warned us to avoid foreign "entanglements", and every time we've not followed those words, our country has suffered for it. Unlike Europe in the 1940s, the fate of Somalia has nothing to do with the United States, and we have no business solving problems the Somalis must solve for themselves.


Yep, I agree, my following sentance was
Quote
" It's been my experience that MOST people that have the ability to put provide for themselves through peacefull means will.  Some won't though,  so you've got to kill them eventually. "


I do think however that keeping potential enemies at bay is a neccesary foreign entablement.   I'd rather fight them over there, than in my back yard.  Of course, if we were fighting them over here, I'm sure the peace loving liberal types would be decrying the slaughter of innocent terrorist lives as well.

All this is pointless however.  Our new leadership has already issued a retreat date (a retreat is when you leave the field of battle for any reason other than victory) for Iraq, and it won't be long before the same happens in Afgahnistan I'm sure.  We're empting guantanimo even though there is a high recitivism rate amongs those "poor detainees". 

Why do the liberal factions prefere to see dead americans over dead anyone else??

Once again washington swatts a fly to show that they "Did Something".



Logged
Bill, KD0HG
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2563

304-TH - Workin' it


« Reply #89 on: April 20, 2009, 11:41:01 AM »


I don't decry it Ed. I'm just taking the same flawed line of reasoning (so called) that the antiwar hypocrites did with Iraq - it's all about oil, etc. But now, it's OK to use military force to protect big business. That's why I call them hypocrites. If war is bad, then it's bad. If big business is bad, then it's bad. It can't be bad when one guy is president and not bad when another is. In other words, I'm illustrating how absurd these hypocritical anti-war types really are.


Steve, regrettably, I don't agree with you here.

We were *not* under attack by Saddam when we last went into Iraq and took that government down. Hence the divisive opinions on the war that exist today.

OTOH, we, or a critical allied government *were* under attack when we stopped the invasion of Kuwait in Gulf War 1. We had a treaty to protect Kuwait. A conflict which I believe very few Americans were opposed to. No one thought that conflict was unjustified. President Bush 1 apparently weighed the options and decided not to completely take out Saddam, even though we could have.

Again, the act of piracy on the Alabama is viewed as a direct attack on the USA and its citizens, and hence the support for taking the pirates out militarily.

There are significant differences. In the danger, perceived or otherwise, and our response to same. The necessity for the current war in Iraq was not sold very well to the American people.

hg
Logged
KA1ZGC
Guest
« Reply #90 on: April 20, 2009, 12:25:04 PM »

You bring up some good points here, Bill; but you're largely talking a matter of perspective, which is kind of what Steve was (and several more of us are) eluding to.

We were *not* under attack by Saddam when we last went into Iraq and took that government down. Hence the divisive opinions on the war that exist today.

He shot at our military every day between the end of the Gulf War and our forces entering Baghdad. Ask any of the guys who patrolled the (U.N.-imposed) no-fly zones, you were guaranteed to get shot at. Not just anti-aircraft machine guns, either. They had plenty of rockets and missiles they lobbed at us for a full decade.

So, he wasn't exactly sitting back and doing nothing, either.

Everyone forgot that, and the long list of reasons we gave to go in. Instead, they focused on the one reason that turned out to be bogus (that the entire planet also believed to be true) as a reason to claim the whole thing was made up. We're a very myopic society.

That's perception for you.

OTOH, we, or a critical allied government *were* under attack when we stopped the invasion of Kuwait in Gulf War 1. We had a treaty to protect Kuwait. A conflict which I believe very few Americans were opposed to. No one thought that conflict was unjustified. President Bush 1 apparently weighed the options and decided not to completely take out Saddam, even though we could have.

Very few people were against it, the few that were started the rallying cry of "this is all about oil". They, of course, were exactly right then. It was about oil, but like we've seen in the last couple of years, disruption to the oil supply causes huge upheaval in our lives here. Massive changes in the flow of money took place when the price of oil doubled, jobs were lost, and the other cracks in our foundation were seriously stressed.

So a war about oil isn't as petty as naysayers like to make it sound, unless they want to go back to $4.00/gal gas again. Seemed to me like most of those same people were also the ones who complained the loudest about that, too.

This time, it wasn't all about oil, but that rallying cry continued, and people fell for it. That's particularly odd (and hypocritical), because the orignal Gulf War was far more about oil than the current conflict is, but they all supported that.

Besides, we owed it to the Kurds, in my opinion. We convinced them to rise up against Saddam Hussein, but unlike the Afghanis in the '70s, we didn't arm them. We just sat back and watched by sattellite as they got slaughtered (by the chemical weapons that supposedly didn't exist) in the uprising we encouraged. They've lost more people than we have, and many of the survivors would probably prefer death.

Again, the act of piracy on the Alabama is viewed as a direct attack on the USA and its citizens, and hence the support for taking the pirates out militarily.

There are significant differences. In the danger, perceived or otherwise, and our response to same.

Exactly! The perception is what is screwed up, here. Now that we have a different President, the "mistakes" made in the last conflicts simply won't be "mistakes" anymore! They'll work beautifully now. America went from "we're stretched too thin across the globe" to "we can wipe out this country in a day, let's declare war" almost literally overnight.

This is hypocrisy, plain and simple, brought about by a perspective molded by misinformation, rumors, irresponsible journalism, and in many cases outright lies.

That's what I've been saying, that's what Steve's been saying, and to some extent that's what Ed's been saying (though I think Ed's trying to focus more on "stick to what you know, sunshine").

I'm not so much disagreeing with you as providing a different point of view on the same things, Bill.
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #91 on: April 20, 2009, 01:20:31 PM »

We weren't under attack when we went into Yugoslavia. We weren't under attack from Germany in WWII. We weren't under attack by Saddam in Gulf War I. The alliance you speak of lead to numerous UN resolutions - many of which were reason for the recent invasion. Read the Congressional resolution. There were like 19 reasons in it.

There was NO Congressional approval for the recent military action. To use your logic, we should have been taking military action against terrorists since at least the 1970's, since they killed or kidnapped American blew up Embassies, etc - direct attacks on the USA and its citizens. Yet I heard nothing from the anti-war (so called) crowd. Why? American citizens are attacked on a nearly daily basis, somewhere in the world (criminal, narco, etc). Yet no calls for military action. Why?

So, I still see glaring discrepancies and more than a little hypocrisy in those now cheering military action when in the past they were staunchly against it (or so they said).
Logged
K6JEK
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189


RF in the shack


« Reply #92 on: April 20, 2009, 02:52:22 PM »

I don't decry it Ed. I'm just taking the same flawed line of reasoning (so called) that the antiwar hypocrites did with Iraq - it's all about oil, etc. But now, it's OK to use military force to protect big business. That's why I call them hypocrites. If war is bad, then it's bad. If big business is bad, then it's bad. It can't be bad when one guy is president and not bad when another is. In other words, I'm illustrating how absurd these hypocritical anti-war types really are.
I resemble that remark.  I was against the Iraq war long before it was a war but not for any of the reasons you cite, more like these reasons:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Besides I was extremely skeptical of claims of Al Qaeda in Iraq since those guys hated the government in Iraq and Sadaam Hussein.  He was third on their list after the Saudis and us.

So that's just a cheap shot.  Calling people who were against the Iraq war hypocrites because of a line of reasoning you made up for us which, in fact, had nothing to do with what I was thinking or saying.

Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #93 on: April 20, 2009, 03:32:46 PM »

No cheap shot. If what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Why would you be upset at remarks not directed at you? I didn't call all those against the Iraq war hypocrites, just those who used flawed reasoning but now are all for military action. It's not about the stance, it's about the reasons/principles (or lack thereof) behind the stance.

That said, and once again, the UN and Congressional resolutions spoke of far more than Al Qaeda in Iraq. To single out that one item, while possibly correct, is a rather narrow plank on which to form the basis of a stance.

BTW, it's good to hear you say Dick Cheney was right.  Shocked
Logged
Ed/KB1HYS
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1852



« Reply #94 on: April 20, 2009, 05:55:01 PM »


Why do the liberal factions prefere to see dead americans over dead anyone else??


Cooler heads might ask why anyone would make such a patently absurd statement.

js
 

My head was not cool at the time.... some times it happens.

I get that way because the things I mentioned make it appear to me that the men who died in afganistan and iraq did so for nothing. 

The closing of gitmo, with the associated application of constitutional rights to EPWs, and the soon to follow release of many who gladly will kill americans again and again.

The retreat from the field of battle after so many troops died for that mission to succeed. (which proves that those who "support the troops but not the mission" are so very wrong).

The certainty that the only message we've sent is that any opponent is that he only has to wait it out, and the ADHD american public will hand him a victory (Vietnam took 7 or so years, Irag took 9, Afganistan? we'll see) and that any ally will be left to die when we pull out.   

The final certainty that because of the first three reasons, more Americans will die, because we made ourselves fail.

Americas final defeat will never come from an outside aggressor, we will surely decay from the inside out and hand our nation to whom ever has the determination to take that from us which we no longer have the will to hold. 
Logged

73 de Ed/KB1HYS
Happiness is Hot Tubes, Cold 807's, and warm room filling AM Sound.
 "I've spent three quarters of my life trying to figure out how to do a $50 job for $.50, the rest I spent trying to come up with the $0.50" - D. Gingery
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #95 on: April 20, 2009, 07:18:33 PM »

War, play to win or don't bother.
Yea, all about oil, why don't we end up with the oil. We just turn it over to the next crack pot in line and get screwed again. I seem to remember the people of Kuait headed for the hills while we cleaned up their mess. I don't recall any appreciation. Iraq, yea they will sure pay us back for cleaning up their mess.
I don't remember sad man insane shooting down a single plane in 10 years. He got a regular spanking too. He was in the box.
 
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #96 on: April 21, 2009, 09:43:49 AM »

Actually Kuwait payed us a ton of money. Did any of the EU countries pay us back for WWII not to mention the Marshall Plan? Hitler was in his box. Why did we need to clean up their mess? Oh, that's right, it was white people invovled, so war was good. Now that is not white people involved, it's a rat hole and war is bad. Hypcritical and racist. How low can you go?
Logged
Bill, KD0HG
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2563

304-TH - Workin' it


« Reply #97 on: April 21, 2009, 10:15:36 AM »

Steve, that's a bit harsh...
Logged
Todd, KA1KAQ
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4310


AMbassador


« Reply #98 on: April 21, 2009, 10:57:21 AM »


Some might say the same about popping those poor, impoverished pirates in the bean with a high powered rifle too, Bill. Wink

Logged

known as The Voice of Vermont in a previous life
Bill, KD0HG
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2563

304-TH - Workin' it


« Reply #99 on: April 21, 2009, 11:01:02 AM »

Some indeed might.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.09 seconds with 19 queries.