warpedskydiver 0 #26 June 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteUm didn't we bomb him first? Yes ... and in response to Operation El Dorado Canyon in 1986 the Libyan regime metaphorically 'dug in more.' Q'addafi responded by accelerating his covert nuclear and chemical weapons programs, attempted to get an offensive biological program going, and increased state sponsorship of terrorism: admittedly to the bombing of Pan Flight 103 (Lockerbie), allegedly supporting the hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 by Abu Nidal, increasing illict arms deals (sales to other non-state actors), was complicit in the kidnapping and execution of at least half-dozen American and British nationals in the Middle East immediately after, and tried to pay (~$2.5M. iirc) inner city American gangs to commit terror against US citizens. VR/Marg His association through operatives with the El Rukins was well documented. I used to wish I had a few claymores when I was working across the street from their headquarters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #27 June 6, 2008 Quote>what I am claiming is that we need to distinguish between those who will >change and those who won't change and focus are efforts on those who >will. I agree! Now, how do you determine which ones will be amenable to discussion/negotiation/bribery? By studying the psychology of the individual (and country) and the economic dependence of the country."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 June 6, 2008 QuoteQuote"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last" - Sir Winston Churchill "You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. " - Sir Winston Churchill Iirc, the "Blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech was *after* WWII had begun, yes? VR/Marg The quote was from 1940, in his first address as PM.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #29 June 6, 2008 Quote Quote My family lived in SE England (Kent) and knew the invasion was underway before it was announced, due to the number of aircraft going south. Tom Morrison is still an active skydiver and a D-Day veteran. He was on the recent JOES world record (see June "Parachutist"). He's a cool guy. Does anyone know of any other D-Day veterans who still skydive? Carl Nelson Sr. Unless you have been living under a rock!Not jumping, but certainly partially responsible for the fact you even skydive. So he still skydives but doesn't jump. Still contradicting yourself I seeHow did you like that picture of Gomie, Rainbo and me on the 16-way team? The one you claimed never existed? The one you claimed I lied about just before you got banned?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #30 June 6, 2008 Quote Quote Quote "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last" - Sir Winston Churchill "You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. " - Sir Winston Churchill Iirc, the "Blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech was *after* WWII had begun, yes? VR/Marg The quote was from 1940, in his first address as PM. When do you think WWII started, then? Dec 7, 1941... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 June 6, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last" - Sir Winston Churchill "You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. " - Sir Winston Churchill Iirc, the "Blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech was *after* WWII had begun, yes? VR/Marg The quote was from 1940, in his first address as PM. When do you think WWII started, then? Dec 7, 1941 I provided the rough date of the quote - I made no remarks concerning it's relation to the start of the war. Making assumptions, again?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #32 June 6, 2008 I see you will never change, always attacking others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #33 June 6, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last" - Sir Winston Churchill "You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. " - Sir Winston Churchill Iirc, the "Blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech was *after* WWII had begun, yes? VR/Marg The quote was from 1940, in his first address as PM. When do you think WWII started, then? Dec 7, 1941 I provided the rough date of the quote - I made no remarks concerning it's relation to the start of the war. Making assumptions, again? Iirc, the "Blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech was *after* WWII had begun, yes? YES! Which means mnealtx's quote was totally out of context. Tell us, Mike, how do you feel about Nixon talking to Mao and Brezhnev, Eisenhower talking to Khruschev, Reagan talking to Gorbachev, Kissinger talking to Le Duc Tho. Were they all traitors?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #34 June 6, 2008 Quote I see you will never change, always attacking others. I'm still waiting for an apology from when you called me a liar.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 June 6, 2008 QuoteYES! Which means mnealtx's quote was totally out of context. Perhaps you should look up the date of YOUR quote, Professor - you'll find it's even MORE out of context in that regard, since it was in 1954!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #36 June 6, 2008 Quote Quote YES! Which means mnealtx's quote was totally out of context. Perhaps you should look up the date of YOUR quote, Professor - you'll find it's even MORE out of context in that regard, since it was in 1954! I gave the exact date, Mike. I SET the contextHere... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #37 June 6, 2008 >By studying the psychology of the individual . . . Also agreed! Now, what is the best way to learn how someone thinks and how they relate to other people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 June 6, 2008 Quote Quote Quote YES! Which means mnealtx's quote was totally out of context. Perhaps you should look up the date of YOUR quote, Professor - you'll find it's even MORE out of context in that regard, since it was in 1954! I gave the exact date, Mike. I SET the contextHere Both quotes were after the war started. If mine is out of context due to that, then so is yours, by a larger amount.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #39 June 6, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote YES! Which means mnealtx's quote was totally out of context. Perhaps you should look up the date of YOUR quote, Professor - you'll find it's even MORE out of context in that regard, since it was in 1954! I gave the exact date, Mike. I SET the contextHere Both quotes were after the war started. If mine is out of context due to that, then so is yours, by a larger amount. Who was the UK (Churchill) at war with in 1954?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #40 June 7, 2008 Quote>We know what they stand for and they aren't changing (even if we talk to them). Are you claiming, for example, that our talks with Pakistan had nothing to do with what happened in that country over the past few decades? After all, why would a brutal warlord listen to us? Why did we even bother? If the very best the right can do lately is claim "it's worthless to talk to people, and anyone who does doesn't deserve to be president" then they are in trouble indeed.Maybe THIS>http://www.publicintegrity.org/militaryaid/report.aspx?aid=831I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #41 June 7, 2008 QuoteIt's too bad that Obama wasn't around back then - he could have just talked with Hitler and then none of that sacrifice would have been necessary. Damn that warmonger Franklin Delano Roosevelt! AH yes, because the US wasn't an isolationist country only joining the war once Pearl Harbor happened ....hrm...sounds familiar. It's too bad Bush wasn't in office back then. He would have invaded Chile and spied on American's thinking they were trying to dig a hole to Japan to help them invade our farm land._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thirdworld19 0 #42 June 7, 2008 QuoteHistory is a neat thing … instructive but not predictive. Remember the Arab leader that President Reagan called the “mad dog of the Middle East"? As a result of a decade of quiet diplomacy spanning the Clinton & GW Bush administrations (i.e., it takes time & the a-partisan nature of diplomacy), Libya voluntarily gave up its nuclear and chemical weapons programs after relations were normalizing with the west and demonstrated to the Bush administration's satisfaction that it was no longer a state sponsor of terrorism. Full diplomatic ties were re-established in May 2006. Are things still less than ideal? Yes. More importantly, have the security interests of the US been served through diplomacy with less-than-palatable regimes? Yes. VR/Marg So what role do you think the following had, if any, with regard to Libya: Their people were starving because of economic sanctions. They gave up their WMD shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, realizing that the current administration were not a bunch of p*%$#@ as they had been during Clinton's years and they would back up their sanctions if necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #43 June 8, 2008 Quote Their people were starving because of economic sanctions. They gave up their WMD shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, realizing that the current administration were not a bunch of p*%$#@ as they had been during Clinton's years and they would back up their sanctions if necessary. You are right that the OIF and OEF played a role, not in the way described. As the draw-up to the invasion of Iraq was occurring, the career foreign service officers and diplomatic corps were able to do their jobs of pursuing US policy interests as promulgated and defined by the administration. Diplomacy worked. The stage for Libya’s renunciation had been set during President Clinton’s administration, predominantly through strong support of UN efforts. Diplomacy takes time, i.e., it’s not a vocation for those who demand instantaneous gratification, & diplomacy is an a-partisan endeavor. Sanctions and negotiations pre-dated 9-11 and March 2003. The findings of the Lockerbie trial set the international stage. It’s an example of successful treatment of prosecution of terrorism as an international criminal issue and the affect that such criminal prosecution can have on states. For more see the US State Dept’s Background Note: Libya and the US Congressional Research Service Libya : Background and U.S. Relations from November 2005 (i.e., still a Republican-controlled Congress, if that’s important to you) and mirrored currently on the US State Dept website. Qadhafi wanted to open his country in response to UN economic sanctions – a very capitalist motivation for a supposed “socialist.” UN sanctions were effective: not in “starving” people (starving the populace was *never* the intention) but in isolating Libya from the international community and global market place. Oil is/was Libya’s principal source of income. Qadhafi is also getting old. He’s not apocryphal is his Islam. And he has a very politically-active son, Sayf al Islam, an alum of London School of Economics, who widely believed to be the likely successor (although he has hinted at advocacy for direct democracy ). If the President wants to take all the ‘credit’ for the diplomatic success of normalizing relations with Libya and claim it as a high point of foreign policy success of his administration – yeah! The security interests of the US were served in an economically-effective manner with no loss of US life – yeah! “Who” gets credit – John Holum or John Bolton – is far less important. The Bush administration State Dept – under both SecStates – and the foreign service corps deserves substantive credit & kudos for successful use of diplomacy to achieve rollback of a nuclear and chemical weapons programs and reducing the threat a state sponsor of terrorism. That’s the point – diplomacy worked! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites