Home› A Moving Train

Spin's answer to the problem! FEAR

SpinbrettSpinbrett Posts: 251
edited March 2008 in A Moving Train
Ok, remember when the US base got bombed back in the 80's. Might have been in Beirut. Reagon was president. He found out it was Libya (Khadafi was leader I think) He said, ok, you bomb us, we bomb you. He bombed the hell out of the Libyan coast. They even dropped flyers that said they knew where Khadafi was staying and that they could have killed him that night if they wanted too. You never heard another peep out of Libya after that. Khadafi was scared out of his mind( because they were right about where he was) and he behaved after that. I say if a country takes responsibility for blowing up our buildings(twin towers) ships, planes etc. then no problem....your country loses a city, and we're not telling you which one. Worked with Libya.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Spinbrett wrote:
    Ok, remember when the US base got bombed back in the 80's. Might have been in Beirut. Reagon was president. He found out it was Libya (Khadafi was leader I think) He said, ok, you bomb us, we bomb you. He bombed the hell out of the Libyan coast. They even dropped flyers that said they knew where Khadafi was staying and that they could have killed him that night if they wanted too. You never heard another peep out of Libya after that. Khadafi was scared out of his mind( because they were right about where he was) and he behaved after that. I say if a country takes responsibility for blowing up our buildings(twin towers) ships, planes etc. then no problem....your country loses a city, and we're not telling you which one. Worked with Libya.

    Why were US troops in Beirut attacked in the first place? Why were US troops there at all?
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    Commy wrote:
    Why were US troops in Beirut attacked in the first place? Why were US troops there at all?

    Plus the fact that Reagan pulled all the troops out within weeks. That's a sign of strength.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    flywallyfly wrote:
    Plus the fact that Reagan pulled all the troops out within weeks. That's a sign of strength.
    Why are we trying to be strong?
  • SpinbrettSpinbrett Posts: 251
    If I remember right, they had paid to have a base there. Sort of like the Phillipines. We paid them to allow us to have a base there. Signed contract for so many years. After that, you have to renegotiate. Reagon got them out because he knew you couldnt fight them on the ground in their own neighborhoods. Why do you think I raq is such a pain. Same as Vietnam. Not a good idea to fight the enemy on the ground in their backyard. Take over the sky's and rain down death from above.
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    Commy wrote:
    Why are we trying to be strong?

    Just saying the original comments that the US needs to put fear into it's "enemies" is a joke, as was Reagan, nothing else. Not arguing policy here.
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    Spinbrett wrote:
    If I remember right, they had paid to have a base there. Sort of like the Phillipines. We paid them to allow us to have a base there. Signed contract for so many years. After that, you have to renegotiate. Reagon got them out because he knew you couldnt fight them on the ground in their own neighborhoods. Why do you think I raq is such a pain. Same as Vietnam. Not a good idea to fight the enemy on the ground in their backyard. Take over the sky's and rain down death from above.



    We were on a peacekeeping mission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
  • SpinbrettSpinbrett Posts: 251
    Well, what ever tactics you like/dislike, this one definately worked!
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Spinbrett wrote:
    Well, what ever tactics you like/dislike, this one definately worked!
    Yeah, fear and violence work, history is full of examples....Hussein, ,Hitler, George Bush II, Pol Pot. Yeah they work, but should we be using them?
  • SpinbrettSpinbrett Posts: 251
    Its just like M>A>D> Mutually assured destruction. You attack and CLAIM responsibility, there will be a consequence. Not attacking first here.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Spinbrett wrote:
    Its just like M>A>D> Mutually assured destruction. You attack and CLAIM responsibility, there will be a consequence. Not attacking first here.
    again, why were US troops in Beirut?


    If we were not attacking first why did we have troops on their soil?
  • SpinbrettSpinbrett Posts: 251
    US troops were there because the UN sent them to maintain peace along with several other countries.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Spinbrett wrote:
    US troops were there because the UN sent them to maintain peace along with several other countries.
    really. if you can cite that I might be interested.
  • SpinbrettSpinbrett Posts: 251
    click this link, then click on the link that says peace keeping. It explains how the UN sent the troops there to Beirut.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Be...rracks_bombing
  • leatherman_8leatherman_8 Posts: 107
    Just to get the facts straight, a Hezbollah splinter group under the name Islamic Jihad was responsible for the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983. Hezbollah was/is supported by Iran.

    The bombing of Libya in 1986 was in response to several smaller terrorist attacks, such as a West Berlin nightclub and I believe the Rome airport.

    And even after that, Gaddafi continued to funnel weapons and money to terrorist organizations, and was responsible for the bombing of the 1988 Pan-Am flight over Scotland.
    Please don't smoke in smoke free buildings. You aren't cool, you're just an asshole
  • godpt3godpt3 Posts: 1,020
    Spinbrett wrote:
    Ok, remember when the US base got bombed back in the 80's. Might have been in Beirut. Reagon was president. He found out it was Libya (Khadafi was leader I think) He said, ok, you bomb us, we bomb you. He bombed the hell out of the Libyan coast. They even dropped flyers that said they knew where Khadafi was staying and that they could have killed him that night if they wanted too. You never heard another peep out of Libya after that. Khadafi was scared out of his mind( because they were right about where he was) and he behaved after that. I say if a country takes responsibility for blowing up our buildings(twin towers) ships, planes etc. then no problem....your country loses a city, and we're not telling you which one. Worked with Libya.

    Guess what... Khadafi won. Have you noticed who ISN'T on the international terror list anymore. Yep. Libya's now our friend. And do you know why??? It sure ain't because they've renounced their ways. No, buddy, Libya happens to be sitting on a pretty significant untapped oil deposit. But until they were removed from international sanctions, there wasn't any way for America to get access to that oil. The Libyans were too stupid to pump the crude out without continually blowing themselves up.
    "If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
    —Dorothy Parker

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    all politics of who was aggressor aside, in general I'm a pretty big fan of responding to any attack with 'overreaction' of force. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, but taking both of the asshole's eyes will settle the issue and deter anyone else from trying anything.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    leatherman_8 wrote:
    And even after that, Gaddafi continued to funnel weapons and money to terrorist organizations, and was responsible for the bombing of the 1988 Pan-Am flight over Scotland.

    There is actually more evidence that the FBI bombed that plane than Gadafi. Not sayingn the FBI did it, but as far as the evidence goes it looks like they might have.
  • eekamouseeekamouse Posts: 267
    Actually this tactic was assbackwards.

    1) Instead of dropping letters to Gadaffi, they should have dropped bombs on him, if they really knew where he was.

    2) Instead of dropping bombs randomly, where innocent people would get killed, they should have dropped letters, saying, "We killed Gadaffi. Shape up."

    That's also what the fuck we should have done in Iraq.
    Love is more important to me than faith.
  • RockinInCanadaRockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    Fear worked good on some American civilians (talking the past seven years now though).
  • DriftingByTheStormDriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Spinbrett wrote:
    I say if a country takes responsibility for blowing up our buildings(twin towers) ships, planes etc. then no problem....your country loses a city, and we're not telling you which one.

    You open your mouth a lot, but you say very little, amigo.

    Thats mighty tough talk you are jabberin, but it means nothing.
    Who is it exactly that has claimed responsibility for any of these acts of agression on America lately?

    In other words, what is the point of this thread?
    Far as i can tell America is just making up enemies left and right.

    Best i can remember 13 of the 19 hijackers on 9\11 were from SAUDI ARABIA ... but nevertheless, Afghanistan and Iraq took it up the ass.

    Seems to me, best i can remember Al Qeida and the Saddam regime were bitter enemies ... Saddam wouldn't let them anywhere near his country ... he was a secular dictator, they were fundamentalist radicals. And yet, by invading, toppling and destabilizing Iraq we DELIBERATELY created a breeding ground for our new found Enemy-Du-Jur.

    So i guess, without getting too far sidetracked with all these political issues of who the real enemy is and who made it so ... what i'd really like to know is, just what exactly it is you are insinuating in this thread.

    Because you are talking a long head of steam about going bezerker on "someone" ... like you desperately want to deal a world of hurting to "someone" in response to their attacks on us ... and yet, best i can recollect, we don't even have known enemy.

    We are illegaly in a country that we illegaly invaded, rewriting laws and history after we illegaly "tried" and murdered their leader, and illegaly conducting a "war" on whomever it is that picks up arms and attempts to resist OUR imposed tyranny.

    So what gives?
    Who you wanna do in?
    I'm game.
    Lets go ape shit on the world.
    We can take 'em all, goddamnit!
    We are the goddamn motherfucking US of A, motherfuckers!
    :cool:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sign In or Register to comment.