What are YOU doing to help stop terror?

[CSM]

The items I send are simple items we take for granted. The men and women over there love to get mail - but packages from strangers really mean alot to them

Any ideas what else I can include in the CARE packages?

I send all kinds of stuff...DVDs, books, mucnchies of all kinds. I also send disposable cameras, writing materials, and stuff like that. I even occassionally send stuff for waterproofing maps, small tool kits (pocket size) for fixing glasses and that sort of thing.

 

[red states rule]

I send all kinds of stuff...DVDs, books, mucnchies of all kinds. I also send disposable cameras, writing materials, and stuff like that. I even occassionally send stuff for waterproofing maps, small tool kits (pocket size) for fixing glasses and that sort of thing.

Thanks

You have given me several new items to send with the next set of packages

 

[Gunny]

It is different typre of crackers : Town House, Rye, and Cheeze Its. I mix them up for the guys

So far no complaints - and I ask them what they want

They say thanks for sending what I do - and anything will be fine

Don't be so sensitive. I was poking fun at the MRE crackers. Nothing more. You can send a deployed person an envelope with a blank sheet of paper in it and they'll be so happy they got mail they might not even notice the blank paper.

It doesn't take much. It's a link to your world, and humanity much more than anything else.

 

[Annie]

I send all kinds of stuff...DVDs, books, mucnchies of all kinds. I also send disposable cameras, writing materials, and stuff like that. I even occassionally send stuff for waterproofing maps, small tool kits (pocket size) for fixing glasses and that sort of thing.

At Sam's Club the other day I saw a laminating kit that didn't need a laminator, very cool. I think it was less than $50.

 

[Rosotar]

The day will come , hopefully, when we realize we can not fight terrorism with our hands tied behind our back.

You are obviously stuck on this mantra of somebody having their hands "tied behind their backs" Ret.Gunny. Like a broken record.

Who'se got their hands tied behind their backs?

Maybe you wish we could be free to conduct ourselves just like our "terrorist" enemies? If that's the case then why pay all this lip service to hating terrorists?

Actually those of us with more years behind us and probably more military training than you've had know exactly what you're doing. You're already re-writing history because you didn't learn a fucking thing from Vietnam.

NO REASON TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE + SCREWED UP POLICY/STRATEGY = LOSS

You are simply making up your story for our loss in Iraq ahead of time. It's the same, lame-assed excuse that revisionists have been using to explain our loss in Vietnam for decades.
I suspect that won't happen until a terrorist strike kills enough people all at once for the " its a law enforcement" people to wake the hell up. Well let me further add, the dead have to be the " right" sort.

It is perfectly ok to murder hundreds of thousands in any NON western or 1st World Country. No one really gives a damn. Hell the supposed bleeding hearts SUPPORT terrorists if they are killing the right group..

You mean like the Reagan & Bush I administration's support of Saddam Hussein even after he had committed genocide because he was on our "side?"

But right now we are stuck with suposedly intelligent , TRAINED, people that would rather lose because they do not like the President. The claim that Iraq is not part of the war on terror is on its face LUDICROUS...

Only according to you RetGunny. Not according to the experts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

It does not matter one bit why or whether we should have gone into Iraq. WE ARE THERE. The Enemy is THERE. Leaving before we provide a stable military and police indigenous to Iraq is the BIGGEST mistake we can ever make. Such a retreat WILL result in anarchy in a Major oil producing region that will effect the entire world. It will embolden the terrorists. It will free terrorist assets to be used elsewhere. It will likely result in income and facilities for the Terrorists to use else where. It will destabilize the entire Gulf region. It will embolden Countries that support , fund and train terrorists. It will once again tell our allies we can not be counted on to follow through even in our own National Interest.

I guess your president should have thought of these things before he opened up this Pandora's box huh?

 

[Annie]

You are obviously stuck on this mantra of somebody having their hands "tied behind their backs" Ret.Gunny. Like a broken record.

Who'se got their hands tied behind their backs?

Maybe you wish we could be free to conduct ourselves just like our "terrorist" enemies? If that's the case then why pay all this lip service to hating terrorists?

Isn't this the reason for the Geneva Conventions? That all hostiles agree to certain preconditions, to protect civilians?

Actually those of us with more years behind us and probably more military training than you've had know exactly what you're doing. You're already re-writing history because you didn't learn a fucking thing from Vietnam.

I didn't know you were ex-military. What branch and when?

NO REASON TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE + SCREWED UP POLICY/STRATEGY = LOSS

You are simply making up your story for our loss in Iraq ahead of time. It's the same, lame-assed excuse that revisionists have been using to explain our loss in Vietnam for decades.
I suspect that won't happen until a terrorist strike kills enough people all at once for the " its a law enforcement" people to wake the hell up. Well let me further add, the dead have to be the " right" sort.

What are you speaking about here? I fail to get your extrapolation.

You mean like the Reagan & Bush I administration's support of Saddam Hussein even after he had committed genocide because he was on our "side?"

again, specifically what actions of Reagan and Bush 1 are your referring to?

Only according to you RetGunny. Not according to the experts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

How does this link to a 2006 article pertain?

I guess your president should have thought of these things before he opened up this Pandora's box huh?

He should have anticipated the difficulties and the local problems. On that, we agree. What doesn't hold for me, at least without your clarification, is how what you posted is relevant to any discussion.

 

[The Man @ Lunch]

I see exactly where you're coming from. I've had it up to my ears as well with RINOs.

So why do you put up with all the bushbots in our party?

 

[Gunny]

So why do you put up with all the bushbots in our party?

I don't. Rather than look around to see where people stand, you came in assuming right off the bat. Just as you assume I'm a Republican. I am not.

If you were to ask a couple of the long-time members here, you'll find I've gone after a few "Bushbots" myself.

And I damned sure ain't supporting any of these liberal candidates the Republicans are pushing. I'll either write-in or vote libertarian before I vote for Guilliani.

 

[red states rule]

So why do you put up with all the bushbots in our party?

Last I checked, Pres Bush will not be on the ballot in 08

"Our" party - are you saying you are a Republican?

 

[The Man @ Lunch]

Last I checked, Pres Bush will not be on the ballot in 08

"Our" party - are you saying you are a Republican?

If you read my blog you wouldn't need to ask.

 

[Rosotar]

Isn't this the reason for the Geneva Conventions? That all hostiles agree to certain preconditions, to protect civilians?

Yes. For the most part.

I didn't know you were ex-military. What branch and when?

U.S. Army
4th Psychological Operations Group
1st Batallion
1982-1990
Grenada 1983, Panama 1986

What are you speaking about here? I fail to get your extrapolation.

For years historical revisionists have blamed our loss in Vietnam on the U.S. having it's "hands tied" much like Ret. Gunny is doing now with Iraq. Thankfully these people are for the most part just a bunch of embittered old fools and not military strategists. Anyone naive enough to think that our defeat in Vietnam (or Iraq) is as simple as that really doen't know WTF they're talking about. These things are very complicated and the lessons learned from defeat are often much more valuable than those learned from victory. When you trivialize and minimize the causes of defeat you waste the lesson and you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes much like we have done in Iraq.

again, specifically what actions of Reagan and Bush 1 are your referring to? How does this link to a 2006 article pertain?

RetGunny made some assinine comment about how "liberals" support terrorists as long as they're killing the "right" group of people. I was merely pointing out that those two clowns Reagan and Bush I continued to support Saddam Hussein, including selling him "dual use" biological and chemical agents even AFTER he had demonstrated a willingness to use them to commit genocide on his own countrymen.

My point was that what RetGunny accused "libs" of was actually something that brain-dead, phony, pop-icon Ronald Reagan and "Daddy-Bush" were guilty of and they're not even liberals.

He should have anticipated the difficulties and the local problems. On that, we agree. What doesn't hold for me, at least without your clarification, is how what you posted is relevant to any discussion.

I disagree. If you read my post in the context of a reply to RetGunny's statements it makes sense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We lost in Vietnam because politicians gave up. Nixon had all but won in 1971. If your head was not so far up your butt you might want to read what the North Vietnemese military has to say about TET68 and the 1975 invasion, and how surprised they were that the United States just quit.

No revision necassary. Except by liberals that want to turn WW2 into aggression and murder on our part and Viet nam into a military defeat, which it was not.

As to Iraq, when the troops are more afraid of firing their weapon then defending themselves and their team mates because of rules of engagement that read like a Dr Zeus childs story, then those troops most assuradely have their hands tied behind their back. When our military can not get free fire permission on porous borders with enemies slipping across tons of material and hundreds of fighting men without those same terrorists claiming " it was a wedding party" when ever one of their gatherings are attacked, with the press eating it up like candy, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back.

When our troops can be charged with murder for conducting legitamite clearing operations against armed resisting terrorists/ Insurgents because some civilians died in the process, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back.

When a terrorist is shown on tape being shot and the press and the liberal whine machine claim that our soldiers should have "arrested" him rather then shoot him , then our soldiers most definately have their hands tied behind their back.

When a couple bad apples get caught and punished by the military for abuse or real murder and the Liberals and the press are free to claim the entire military is like that, then our troops have their hands tied behind their backs.

When the press can hide in the green zone, hire Iraqis and tell them what story they want, supply the unproven story to the evening news and it is called cutting edge reporting, all while refusing to print DoD provided information on reconstruction, repair, relief and security operations, because that is propaganda, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back.

When the press refuses to cover operations because they are being successful and they would rather report failure, then our troops have their hands tied behind their backs.

When fools can claim Reagan and Bush sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons AND be believed.... we have a real problem.

 

[Rosotar]

We lost in Vietnam because politicians gave up.

Actually RetGunny, they "gave up" when public opinion turned so strongly against the war.

Public opinion turned once the public realized they were being lied to about the war.

Nixon had all but won in 1971. If your head was not so far up your butt you might want to read what the North Vietnemese military has to say about TET68 and the 1975 invasion, and how surprised they were that the United States just quit.

More revisionism?

How about a link to back up these claims?

No revision necassary. Except by liberals that want to turn WW2 into aggression and murder on our part and Viet nam into a military defeat, which it was not.

Unless you are writing your own history book yes....Vietnam was a defeat. But who is saying that about WWII?

As to Iraq, when the troops are more afraid of firing their weapon then defending themselves and their team mates because of rules of engagement that read like a Dr Zeus childs story, then those troops most assuradely have their hands tied behind their back. When our military can not get free fire permission on porous borders with enemies slipping across tons of material and hundreds of fighting men without those same terrorists claiming " it was a wedding party" when ever one of their gatherings are attacked, with the press eating it up like candy, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back.

Christ!

Will someone get RetGunny some frigging cheese to go with his whine!

Name me one war where American soldiers have been free to indiscriminately kill anyone without reprecussions?

When our troops can be charged with murder for conducting legitamite clearing operations against armed resisting terrorists/ Insurgents because some civilians died in the process, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back.

According to the courts no one is being charged with murder for conducting "legitimate" operations. The presumption of "legitimacy" is purely your opinion.

When a terrorist is shown on tape being shot and the press and the liberal whine machine claim that our soldiers should have "arrested" him rather then shoot him , then our soldiers most definately have their hands tied behind their back.

Without conviction by trial we don't have any way of knowing that the person being shot was actually in fact a terrorist do we?

When a couple bad apples get caught and punished by the military for abuse or real murder and the Liberals and the press are free to claim the entire military is like that, then our troops have their hands tied behind their backs.

Who has claimed that the entire military is like that? Do you have a link?

When the press can hide in the green zone, hire Iraqis and tell them what story they want, supply the unproven story to the evening news and it is called cutting edge reporting, all while refusing to print DoD provided information on reconstruction, repair, relief and security operations, because that is propaganda, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back..

It's not the presses job to peddle DOD propaganda. Besides, who says that DOD press releases are reliable?

When the press refuses to cover operations because they are being successful and they would rather report failure, then our troops have their hands tied behind their backs.

This is just your foil hat, conspiracy theory about the "liberal MSM." There's no truth to it. It is simply more of your uninformed opinion.

When fools can claim Reagan and Bush sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons AND be believed.... we have a real problem.

It's been a while since I've looked at this info on the GAO website but I know it's there. I'll look it up and hopefully have it for you manana.

We know that Reagan and Bush sold Saddam those materials because we still have the receipts.

 

[red states rule]

We lost in Vietnam because politicians gave up. Nixon had all but won in 1971. If your head was not so far up your butt you might want to read what the North Vietnemese military has to say about TET68 and the 1975 invasion, and how surprised they were that the United States just quit.

No revision necassary. Except by liberals that want to turn WW2 into aggression and murder on our part and Viet nam into a military defeat, which it was not.

As to Iraq, when the troops are more afraid of firing their weapon then defending themselves and their team mates because of rules of engagement that read like a Dr Zeus childs story, then those troops most assuradely have their hands tied behind their back. When our military can not get free fire permission on porous borders with enemies slipping across tons of material and hundreds of fighting men without those same terrorists claiming " it was a wedding party" when ever one of their gatherings are attacked, with the press eating it up like candy, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back.

When our troops can be charged with murder for conducting legitamite clearing operations against armed resisting terrorists/ Insurgents because some civilians died in the process, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back.

When a terrorist is shown on tape being shot and the press and the liberal whine machine claim that our soldiers should have "arrested" him rather then shoot him , then our soldiers most definately have their hands tied behind their back.

When a couple bad apples get caught and punished by the military for abuse or real murder and the Liberals and the press are free to claim the entire military is like that, then our troops have their hands tied behind their backs.

When the press can hide in the green zone, hire Iraqis and tell them what story they want, supply the unproven story to the evening news and it is called cutting edge reporting, all while refusing to print DoD provided information on reconstruction, repair, relief and security operations, because that is propaganda, then our troops have their hands tied behind their back.

When the press refuses to cover operations because they are being successful and they would rather report failure, then our troops have their hands tied behind their backs.

When fools can claim Reagan and Bush sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons AND be believed.... we have a real problem.

Libs are doing the same thing in Iarq they did in Viet Nam. The US never lost a military battle in Viet Nam, but the liberal media kept "reporting" how we were losing

Like Viet Nam, the left is pushing for surrender, and if we leave before the job is done, the slaughter in Iraq will be much worse then the slaughter in Viet Nam

 

[Rosotar]

Libs are doing the same thing in Iarq they did in Viet Nam. The US never lost a military battle in Viet Nam, but the liberal media kept "reporting" how we were losing

We lost the support of the people in Vietnam. Our objectives became muddled and in truth the enemy did defeat us through insurgency and superior guerrilla tacticts. I don't know what planet you get your information from. The bottom line was then as now, we had no business being there in the first place. Our government lied to us about why we were in Vietnam to begin with. They also lied to us repeatedly about "progress" in that war. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Doesn't all of that sound very familiar today?

Like Viet Nam, the left is pushing for surrender, and if we leave before the job is done, the slaughter in Iraq will be much worse then the slaughter in Viet Nam

You can call it "surrender" but most intelligent people call it simply cutting our losses. It simply doesn't make any sense to continue with strategies that aren't working out of sheer stubborness.

BTW it's not just the "left" that's pushing for a withdrawal of troops. Republicans are deserting Bush like rats off a sinking ship.

Guess you're going to have to find a new talking point huh?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We lost the support of the people in Vietnam. Our objectives became muddled and in truth the enemy did defeat us through insurgency and superior guerrilla tacticts. I don't know what planet you get your information from. The bottom line was then as now, we had no business being there in the first place. Our government lied to us about why we were in Vietnam to begin with. They also lied to us repeatedly about "progress" in that war. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Doesn't all of that sound very familiar today?



You can call it "surrender" but most intelligent people call it simply cutting our losses. It simply doesn't make any sense to continue with strategies that aren't working out of sheer stubborness.

BTW it's not just the "left" that's pushing for a withdrawal of troops. Republicans are deserting Bush like rats off a sinking ship.

Guess you're going to have to find a new talking point huh?

After TET 68 there was NO insurgency, they were all dead. South Vietnam did not fall to some local insurgence, they fell to 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese troops invading. But then if you could read you would know all that.

 

[trobinett]

Rosotar posts:

We lost the support of the people in Vietnam. Our objectives became muddled and in truth the enemy did defeat us through insurgency and superior guerrilla tacticts. I don't know what planet you get your information from. The bottom line was then as now, we had no business being there in the first place. Our government lied to us about why we were in Vietnam to begin with. They also lied to us repeatedly about "progress" in that war. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Doesn't all of that sound very familiar today?

You sir, couldn't be farther from the truth. We didn't loose the support of the locals, we lost the support of the AMERICAN PEOPLE, thanks in no small part to the MSM.

Don't know if you "heads in the sand" type's will every "get it", but "defeat" was NOT what happened to the United States in "Nam, TREASON was what happen, pure and simple. Treason by conspiracy, a conspiracy of the left.

If you really want to go down this road, I'll guide you.

There were lies a plenty, on BOTH sides of the issue, many should be ashamed, and many of those could be brought up on charges, but what would it prove, that we are a country without ball's, a country with no will to suffer the bad with the good, a country that has lost its courage? For what purpose?

Whats happening today has NOTHING to do with what happened in Viet Nam, NOTHING.

 

[red states rule]

We lost the support of the people in Vietnam. Our objectives became muddled and in truth the enemy did defeat us through insurgency and superior guerrilla tacticts. I don't know what planet you get your information from. The bottom line was then as now, we had no business being there in the first place. Our government lied to us about why we were in Vietnam to begin with. They also lied to us repeatedly about "progress" in that war. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Doesn't all of that sound very familiar today?



You can call it "surrender" but most intelligent people call it simply cutting our losses. It simply doesn't make any sense to continue with strategies that aren't working out of sheer stubborness.

BTW it's not just the "left" that's pushing for a withdrawal of troops. Republicans are deserting Bush like rats off a sinking ship.

Guess you're going to have to find a new talking point huh?

So in short, appeasement is still the way you want to fight terrorists?

Sen Webb is showing how Dems will deal terrorists in the Washington Times this morning - sums the Dems up perfectly

 

[Rosotar]

You sir, couldn't be farther from the truth. We didn't loose the support of the locals, we lost the support of the AMERICAN PEOPLE, thanks in no small part to the MSM.

So you're bitter at the "MSM" for ever letting the American people know the TRUTH about Vietnam because once they finally learned the truth about the lies the government was shoving down their throats support crumbled. You should get over that if you want to call yourself an American because that's just the way America works. Our government is not simply free to wage war at its own pleasure without the support of the populace. Our government only exists "for the people and by the people." War cannot and should not be conducted without the support of the American people. When voters withdraw their support of ANYTHING our government is doing then it's time for our elected public servants to bend to the will of the people. That is their job. That's the way Democracy works. There will always be a few "sadsacks" who are bitter because they lost to the will of the majority but that's the way it goes. If our system of government doesn't suit you you might be happier under a dictatorship without a free press.

Don't know if you "heads in the sand" type's will every "get it", but "defeat" was NOT what happened to the United States in "Nam, TREASON was what happen, pure and simple. Treason by conspiracy, a conspiracy of the left.

TREASON?

LOL!

You're pretty loose with that word. I'm thinking that someone like you who rails against the very principles upon which this country was founded is more guilty of "treason" than anyone!

There were lies a plenty, on BOTH sides of the issue, many should be ashamed, and many of those could be brought up on charges, but what would it prove, that we are a country without ball's, a country with no will to suffer the bad with the good, a country that has lost its courage? For what purpose?.

We Americans have plenty of "balls" and we will fight to the death when our national interests are at stake. When our government fabricates the reasons for war and leads our nation into unnessesary quagmires like it did in Vietnam and now Iraq we get a little mad and raise hell. If you were a good American you'd know that and you would be mad too!

Whats happening today has NOTHING to do with what happened in Viet Nam, NOTHING.

Sounds like your the one with his head in the sand. That's the very kind of thinking that looses wars. You simply cannot connect the dots can you?

 

[Rosotar]

So in short, appeasement is still the way you want to fight terrorists?

Sen Webb is showing how Dems will deal terrorists in the Washington Times this morning - sums the Dems up perfectly

As soon as you say the word "appeasement" I know you're just echoing talking points and you have nothing credible to say.