Posted on 07/22/2006 5:59:24 PM PDT by Mia T
You kill them.
They then cease their fire and you can cease yours.
Thanks Mia T!
John Bolton for President. Mia T for Vice President. (or vice versa)
Mama Mia what a ticket!
excellent point
Carter and clinton not only ignored terrorism when it was in its incipient stage and easily stoppable; these two self-aggrandizing wonders carefully fostered and fed terrorism. After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim.... |
A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA |
HEAR CLINTON! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' |
;)
thanx
thx :)
Mia T. Bump.
just one little example of the ....... and the result of being a....
"PAPER TIGER"
Feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving.
It is the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.
In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.
And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance. (This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)
"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'
I thought that my virtual obsession 2 with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."
bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live
Powerful people like Larry King could, with just one sentence, expose and stop bill and hillary clinton from doing any more damage to the United States.
"Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?
Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole."
Q: How do you get a cease fire with terrorists?
A: Easy! Just kill every last one of them. Once all the terrorists are dead, they tend to stop shooting at you.
Mark
.
The Man Who Predicted 9/11 knew:
9/11 Lifesaver RICK RESCORLA
http://www.RickRescorla.com
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361
.
THANK YOU Aloha Ronnie.
.
S.E. Asia's Left =
Communist North Vietnam Dictator HO CHI MINH who was out to communize all of S. E. Asia during the Vietnam War
America's Left that supported HO CHI MINH during the Vietnam War =
WILLIAM CLINTON
HILLARY RODHAM
TED KENNEDY
RAMSEY CLARK
JESSE JACKSON
JOHN LENNON
JOHN KERRY
TOM HAYDEN
JANE FONDA
..etc.
The 20th Century =
The 21st Century, perhaps..?
.
Good points.
From 1965 and the Ia Drang through 1969 in the A Shau, the American military, constrained by policital interferrence (McNamara's "gradual escalation"; no hot pursuit policies) nonetheless delivered at great cost, absolute military victory in Viet Nam.
Their tactical victory was manifest in a treaty that ended the war and recognized S. Vietnam's fledgling but real democratically elected government.
Excerising their post watergate stranglehold on political power, however, the baby boom left, the self same left that today is handwringing over Israel's self defensive actions against our mutual enemies, [including Sen Kennedy, who in 1969seizing only upon the distorted, biased and incomptent newspaper reporting of the MSN, made dramatic speeches during that war, as now, declaring the sacrifice by the military to be entirely "senseless" (when in fact the victory at A Shau, disrupted for more than a year a planned invaison by N. Viet nam) leading the public to become discouraged] emasculated U.S. policy by compelling the grounding of U.S. B-52's or other military support of the S. Vietnamese. With that assurance of U.S. inaction, delivered by the baby boom left, w/in 2 years the N. Invaded en mass (perfect targets for B-52's) and overwhelmed S. Vietnamese forces, leading to the grotesque and haunting pictures of the American embassy evacution and eventually to Cambodian genocide...
The American military that delivered victory in Viet nam but was sold out by the liberals, nonetheless, contributed in no small way to our eventual victory over Soviet communism under Reagan, as they spurred improvements in our defensive capabilities and demonstrated combat effectiveness and commitment, that terrified our enemies. Indeed our Gulf War I victories were led by Viet Nam veterans who applied lessons they learned there, technology developed there and who again demonstrated an aroused America was no nation to mess with.
As the famous quote from Hamburger Hill (the A Shau movie) makes clear, the real enemy of America were home grown leftists, and as you point out some of them are still with us:
"Newsman: [trying to interview GIs returning to base after a hard day of fighting] Hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact Senator Kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.
Sgt. Frantz: [glares at Newsman for a few seconds] You really like this sh*t, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a f*cking vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.
Newsman: [becoming angry] It's my job...
Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bast*rds up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own f*cking"
.
MEMORIES of VIETNAM
http://www.ArmchairGeneral.com/articles.php?p=2785&page=1&cat=59
.
.
NEVER FORGET
Senator TED KENNEDY's fooling our U.S. Congress into cutting off all funding for the South Vietnamese Military to fight for its own Freedom with...
and then all our Humanitarian/Medical Aid as well...
...brought for us to sadly see in the end:
Pictures of a vietnamese Re-Education Camp
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts
Especially sad since a young Senator toured all over South Vietnam in 1965 to see for himself what the Vietnam War was really all about:
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm (See 5th Picture down)
He just knew better then.
He for sure just knows better now.
NEVER FORGET
.
This idea, that EMPATHY rather than military force, is the more effective path to protect the values of American, or other democratic, freedom and security from those who not only hold different values but who would also kill and destroy innocents who they deem in opposition to their ideas, is both a core issue ideologically and politically as well as an ongoing operative force in the left's rampant sedition.--Gail Wynand
'UNITED 93' vs. 'MUNICH'
Paradoxically--poetic justice in its purest form, some would say--the honest movie is the one that ultimately delivers the powerful political message. Spoken by its heroes--our heroes--as they prepare to rush the cockpit shortly before the plane meant for the White House plunges into a Pennsylvania field instead, the simple but powerful words are these:
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006 |
.
JOHN PTAK =
-Longtime Beverly Hills Creative Artists Agency Agent to the Stars that brought all the financing together for the stunner "United 93" & "World Trade Center" Motion Pictures.
-Class of 1960 Rancho Alamitos High School Graduate
http://www.orgs.cc/RAHS60/
The modern left, the largely pampered, excessively self centered, self important US baby boom elite, who are still rationalizing their refusal to accept vietnam military service, adhere, without evidence, to their absolute conviction, that all terrorism needs is EMPATHY. --Gail Wynand |
|
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
"Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections." Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem. From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason. That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will which means both in real time and historically. When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.) Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent. With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity. With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown) and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.
The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11. |
by Mia T, 4.17.04
merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both undeterred by MAD, both quite insane.
If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in Washington--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford.
Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps.
To borrow from the Bard (or whomever), let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent.
America must not pull her punches. (Or Pinches!)
To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.
neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) disdain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.
Mia T, 2.24.04
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
IN A 'PINCH': RETHINKING THE FIRST AMENDMENT James Madison This was bound to happen. The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will. Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches. When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all. If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst. Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.' Thomas Jefferson H. L. Mencken
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
(Which came first, the 'journalist' or the traitor?)
hen the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')
Letter, September 9, 1792, to George Washington
READ MORE
'MISBEGOTTEN' TIMES
(NARROWNESS, MR. SULZBERGER, NOT WIDTH)
PINCH'S NON-APOLOGY APOLOGY
by Mia T, July 18, 2006
by Mia T, 7.11.06
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.