WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

WTF: Let me be the first to congratulate you on the repeal of don't ask don't tell. That has to be a relief.

WRONG. I opposed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't tell. It's not going to be a relief having to deal with people coming out of the closet and acting like you. Unlike this website, I can't log off from the military.

WTF: As to you wanting to assign blame....well ok.

I'm giving the facts behind why we pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.

WTF: We can play the game of unintended consequences forever.

This isn't about assigning blame, but to provide you with information as to how things turned out. My pointing out the fact that the Democrats pulled defeat from what was supposed to be a victory had everything to do with the discussion. Instead of having the integrity to recognize the fact that you don't have an argument, and that you're wrong, you decide to have a temper tantrum and pull the, "well but the neighbor kid does it to!" stunt.

WTF: I don't see the point but I'm game.

This is nothing but self-serving bull. Your ego can't handle the fact that your golden boys, while doing what you believe they should've done, ended up causing harm to us in the long term. This isn't about you "not seeing the point," behind your invented "blame game." This is about you wanting to start throwing a tantrum.

WTF: Here let give Regan his fair share.

What follows is your emotion based assumptions as to what Reagan "caused." I'm going to have fun dismantling your anti Reagan tantrums.

WTF: Reagan increased the budget for support of the radical Muslim Mujahidin conducting terrorism against the Afghanistan government to half a billion dollars a year
One fifth of the money, which the CIA mostly turned over to Pakistani military intelligence to distribute, went to Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a violent extremist who as a youth used to throw acid on the faces of unveiled girls in Afghanistan. Not content with creating a vast terrorist network to harass the Soviets, Reagan then pressured the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to match US contributions.

Ronald Reagan continued a policy that was in place when Carter was in the White House. The article is in error when it claims that the Mujahidin was conducting terrorism against the Afghan government... it wasn't. It was conducting attacks against the Soviet puppet government in Kabul.

The idea that we funded the Taliban, and Al Qaeda is a MYTH.

Our government insisted in supporting only the rebel groups from Afghanistan, the Afghanis. After the Soviet Union pulled out, the Afghanis that we indirectly funded ended up as one of three groups that took control from Kabul. They had weak control of Afghanistan. The rest of Afghanistan was lawless. The Pakistani government raised a group of fringe radical elements to protect their logistics convoys through Afghanistan sometime after the Soviet Union pulled out.

This group was later to become the TALIBAN. This group turned around and overthrew the government that consisted of the Mujahidin that the US supported.

Al Qaeda was a separate element, and they too were formed after the Soviet's pulled out of Afghanistan. They didn't consist of the people that we supported. He was considered a non Afghani, thus didn't get support from the US. His main role was that of a logistics officer, in Pakistan, outfitting and housing non Afghani Arabs headed to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

Reagan had no intentions of supporting the non Afghanis. The Arab countries supported the non Afghanis that were fighting against the Soviets.

WTF: He had earlier imposed on Fahd to give money to the Contras in Nicaragua, some of which was used to create rightwing death squads. (Reagan liked to sidestep Congress in creating private terrorist organizations for his foreign policy purposes, which he branded "freedom fighters," giving terrorists the idea that it was all right to inflict vast damage on civilians in order to achieve their goals).

The Contras weren't terrorists, but a group of people that represented the Nicaraguan population that opposed the Sandanistas. Contrary to common misconception, the Sandanistas were not a democratically elected government, or a group that represented the majority opinion in Nicaragua. They were a Soviet puppet government, placed in power with the help of Soviet and Cuban special/intelligence forces. They played the same games to get into power that the contras played against them.

Congress had its head up its hind end when it came to dealing with the Soviet threat. The Soviet Union, failing in Asia and Europe, turned to Africa, South America and Central America. They made great progress expanding their influence when Carter was President. Ronald Reagan was dead set on stopping their advance cold in these other areas.

Of course, why would a largely Democrat Congress sit on its hind end when the Soviet Union made its progress? Why would they sit on their hind ends when the Soviet Union got to the point to where they had the strategic advantage over us?

It all began in the 1930s, when the Soviet Union tried to infiltrate both political parties. They failed with the Republican Party, they made inroads with the Democratic Party. By the time the 80s rolled around, the influence of the communist ideology was making grand strides with the Democrats. All of a sudden, the Soviet advance in the Americas and in Africa was not the Soviet Union undermining democratically elected governments, it was just the people overthrowing an abusive capitalistic government.

Ronald Reagan had to do what he had to do to keep the Soviet Union from making progress at our expense.

WTF: By giving the Muj weaponry like the stinger shoulderheld missile, which could destroy advanced Soviet arms like their helicopter gunships, Reagan demonstrated to the radical Muslims that they could defeat a super power

Negative. First, arms, funding and supplies were sent to the Pakistanis, who turned around and distributed it to the groups we wanted them to be distributed to.

Second, the Muslims already thought that they could defeat a superpower, long before Reagan came into power. LISTEN to what our enemies say. From their standpoint... Under Islam, you're not to sit on your ass when an invader comes into your country killing women and children. Under Islam, as long as you have Allah on your side, you'll win, as Allah is greater than your enemies.

This has nothing to do with them all of a sudden thinking they could defeat a super power, because they ended up receiving high speed weaponry.

Ronald Reagan's plans, economic, political and military had one main objective... to topple the Soviet Union. It worked. Had he failed to do that, we'd be facing both, a Soviet and a radical Islamic threat.

WTF: Reagan also decided to build up Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a counterweight to Khomeinist Iran, authorizing US and Western companies to send him precursors for chemical and biological weaponry. At one point Donald Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq to assure Saddam that it was all right if he used chemical weapons against the Iranians. Reagan had no taste in friends.

Another misconception.

Iran was our policeman in the Middle East when the Shaw (sp) was in power. We supplied them with arms, equipment and training. When the Shaw got overthrown, they lost favor with us. But, we didn't respond by turning around to build Saddam Hussein up. Saddam brought himself to power by utilizing his knowledge on how to connive his way through an Arabic political hierarchy.

The idea that we gave him the ability to create WMD is another MYTH. The first nations to create conventional WMD did so in the early 20th Century. They did it with technologies that existed during that part of the century. We're talking about pre 1920. Iraq started on their own WMD program in the 1960s. Iraq, at that time, was more advanced than these countries were prior to the 1920s. Saddam created his own WMD programs, without Ronald Reagan's help.

We didn't send him precursors to these technologies either. Saddam took commercial, dual purpose merchandise, and converted them for military use. This included what he could do for chemical and biological (hence WMD) technologies.

None of Reagan's officials told the Iraqis that it was OK to use WMD against the Iranians. Our main role, during the Iraq/Iran war, was to supply the Iraqis with intelligence information on Iranian combat and logistics deployments. The Iraqis got their hardware from European countries.

Your argument irresponsibly tries to tie a connection where there's none. For instance, if you were to purchase some equipment from Radio Shack, turn it into a weapon, then kill your neighbors... your line of reasoning would lead to people being able to blame Radio Shack for killing your neighbors. It'd be equivalent to blaming them for the death of your neighbors. Your reasoning, trying to tie the US and Ronald Reagan to the above incidents, is nothing but inductive fallacy.

WTF: Saddam was not a radical Muslim.

Are you kidding me? You're referencing an Associated Content article?

That article is almost completely erroneous. The one thing that got correct was that he believed in unification of the Arab peoples. But he didn't believe it in the same sense that many believe countries should unite for the common good.

If Saddam were "not" radical, he wouldn't have done things like authorizing thousands of dollars to be rewarded to families of homicide bombers. If Sadman were "not" a radical Muslim, he would NOT support radical Muslim activities. That defies common sense... and anybody that embraces what you just said is simply devoid of common sense.

WTF: He was a secular ruler

Saddam wasn't a secular ruler. He was a dictator that funded terrorism throughout his region, and even attempted to send terrorists our way in the early 1990s. He even built terror training camps inside Iraq to train terrorists to do all forms of terrorism. Not exactly something that a secular ruler would do. If Saddam were a "secular" ruler, he wouldn't have placed "God is Great" on the Iraqi Flag.

WTF: who believed very strongly in pan-Arabism, a movement for unification among the Arab peoples and nations of the Middle East.

The Author of your article missed the point behind this move.

Pan-Arabism is a concept as old as Islam. Radical Muslims don't recognize international boundaries. To them, there's just an Islamic Nation, or a Muslim Nation. Every country, that's predominantly Muslim, is part of this Muslim Nation. Saddam Hussein was one of these radical Muslims who embraced this concept.

WTF: In fact, he opposed the rigid brand of Islam practiced in countries like Iran.

No, he didn't oppose their rigid brand of Islam. He opposed them as he saw them as threats to his power base. We're talking about a man who'd authorized throwing people through shredders for crimes that wouldn't land people in jail here in the US.

WTF: During his rule, women were given much more freedom and opportunity than they had in other Muslim nations.

Not true. Islamic Rule prevailed under Saddam. Women were treated in Iraq as they were throughout the Islamic world. Under Saddam, many of these women had to accept the idea that if one of Sadman's henchmen wanted to rape them, they had no choice but to accept... for the sake of their families. By the time started to run out prior to the invasion, both men and women were afraid of things like a simple phone call.

WTF: One of the reasons he waged the 8-year war with Iran was to prevent the spread of radical Islam, which why he received considerable support from the United States.

WRONG.

Iran had recently gone through a power shift. Saddam saw this as a moment when Iran was week. He promptly sent his Army into Iran to capitalize on their temporary weakness. He didn't want to prevent the spread of radical Islam, he just saw an opportunity to increase his power.

US support for Iraq was in the intelligence realm.

WTF: Guys don't count yet. DADT has been repealed, not implemented , so slow down there big fella

How about telling that one brain cell of yours to quit trying to take you over, and to start doing its job for a change? With that one brain celled operation of yours doing its job, you'd quit posting as if you're possessed by a retarded ghost.

Second, what part of HER don't you understand?

I know I would have definitely have had problems serving with men, such as Rupaul and Kressley, who overtly advertise their homosexuality. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Jesus, do women ''overtly advertise'' their sexuality now in the military?

plus I agree with PJ, no worries about those two joining up!

How about we all agree that there is enough sordid history both on the part of the Left and the Right to fill volumes with? Originally Posted by discreetgent

LOL...yes good Lord yes, that was my point.

How about we all agree that there is enough sordid history both on the part of the Left and the Right to fill volumes with? Originally Posted by discreetgent

How does it make you feel knowing the the democratic party has been co-opted by the progressives who've been hiding in the shadows until the got someone like them in the oval office?

Looking at the current situation and knowing that a lot of people are now homeless and/or facing eviction during what appears to be a worsening winter, can you finally step back and see that progressive ideological laws may have forced those people into a situation that could very well be the end of their existance. Single payer health care is a progessive/fabian ideology. Health rationing is a social agenda of the progressives. They didn't stop their movement, it just went underground and regrouped under the liberal banner.

How does it make you feel knowing the the democratic party has been co-opted by the progressives who've been hiding in the shadows until the got someone like them in the oval office?

Looking at the current situation and knowing that a lot of people are now homeless and/or facing eviction during what appears to be a worsening winter, can you finally step back and see that progressive ideological laws may have forced those people into a situation that could very well be the end of their existance. Single payer health care is a progessive/fabian ideology. Health rationing is a social agenda of the progressives. They didn't stop their movement, it just went underground and regrouped under the liberal banner. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

huh? what the heck does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

Take comfort in the fact that she probably charges him 3x. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

She charges me the rate that's listed on her profile/website.

Does anyone know when L will be back? I wouldn't object if she asked the Mods to close this thread. There, JB, I said it. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Of course you wouldn't object to this thread being closed. You've failed to provide a valid argument, your allies have failed to provide a valid argument, your shoot and move tactics have failed to shake me. You're running out of options. Had our roles ben reversed, and you were the one that was able to keep hammering the opposition, you wouldn't be here arguing that the thread should be closed.

How about having the integrity to walk away from this thread instead?

Come on now herface....that was 45 minutes ago. We all know you finished your business thirty minutes ago. You asleep? Originally Posted by WTF

WRONG. We finished our businesses minutes past deadline.

Piece of advice. Since you can't get your facts straight with regards to your argument, don't try to assume what happens in a room that I'm in, and that you're not in.

IBH you misunderstood me. A soldier is gay and in a relationship. That relationship then breaks up for whatever reason but not because the soldier cheated on the partner. The former partner then outs the soldier to the military. Unless you are claiming that extramarital means any sex not blessed by marriage in which case gay sex by definition is extramarital. My point is it can lead to all kinds of blackmail. Originally Posted by discreetgent

That is exactly what I mean. Heterosexuals must be married under the provisions of the UCMJ in order to engage in "lawful" (by the UCMJ) sex. Every other sexual relationship is against regulations as "Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline." If one's behavior gives the service a black eye in public relations, it will hit back.

I am sure the regulations will also require gays to be lawfully "married." I know most states do not afford this opportunity, but some states do. The military will have no choice but to recognize such lawful marriages. It will be incumbent upon the individual to be married lawfully in such a state. Sexual, promiscuity is not condoned by any branch of the service.

The ladies tell stories about how those army guys fire off their rounds quickly Originally Posted by WTF

Are you that insecure about your own abilities that you have to ask ladies about their activities with other men? No wonder why you brought don't ask don't tell into the picture.

Hey ladies, I want freebies as well; what am I doing wrong? Are my politics the problem?

Sisyphus: That surprises me not... Can't let a little thing like somebody else being right get in the way of your own brilliance....and I use that word VERY loosely...

The main problem with your statement is that NONE of the opposition has advanced a valid, or factual, argument against me. THAT'S why I've yet to change my mind based on what the opposition has said. Again, one major requirement for me, before I jump into a debate, is that I know more about the topic than the people that I debate with. You're not going to see me get into a debate about a topic where others would know more about the topic than I would. Go ahead, look at the other threads and tell me if you see me debating there.

This is simple common sense. That's something that'd be crystal clear to you if you didn't let a little thing like the facts, and logic, get into your way.

Sisyphus: No, you don't....certainly not this audience...

WRONG. The people that post on this message board are no different from the people that posted on the other message boards. The opposition here is acting like they're on script. You guys are predictable. I'm seeing many of the same characters here as I have seen on other message boards. I've seen this same thing play out before. This is the case because human nature doesn't change from one message board to another.

Sisyphus: Nope, I listen to arguments I disagree with all the time...it's the pathetically hopeless I tend to tune out...which I'll be getting back to doing in just a second...

Negative. You disagree with my argument, and I'm basing this on the comments you've made on this message board. You see, if you look at someone's profile, there's an option that allows you to look at the posts they've made during the past. You've said allot of things that I disagree with. You've argued against many people that I'd side with had I jumped into the argument that you were involved with.

I stand by what I said, the real reason you don't have any interest in anything I'm saying is that you disagree with my side of the argument.

Sisyphus: Now, now...I thought you were a history buff, Boss.

That's the only thought you had that turned out correct. I am a history buff, with my main focus on human events over the course of history. Specifics is a whole different matter when it comes to what I'd read during my off time.

Sisyphus: You used to be "Chief" to the rest of the squad until somebody got a bug up their ass about that being a "Navy" thang...

My grandfather, uncle, and brothers were in the Army before I was. My grandfather was in during World War II. None of them referred to the squad leader as "Chief." That's use in the Aviation side of the house... AKA, crew chief. In the infantry, we have section or squad leaders.

Sisyphus: I suppose...if something's gone horribly awry in today's "new" Army, Smoke.
But, I kinda doubt it....anybody that would promote you beyond E-6 has an even bigger screw loose than you do...and that's saying something!

And you're saying that based on what? I thought so. You haven't seen my tactical or garrison skills. All you have to judge me on are my posts on this message board, posts where I'm crushing your side of the argument. You're not speaking as someone that knows who I am as a soldier, you're not someone that's "in the middle" with this debate, you're speaking from pure emotion, and BS.

Sisyphus: No, I didn't. You can deny being pegged all you wish...doesn't make it so.

You remind me of the guy that tried to argue with me when I was OPFOR. I was in a room that required minutes for the eyes to adjust. Every team that came into the room fired at where they thought I was. They fired at a point 2 feet to my right. Yet, they insisted that they fired right at me.

That's you. I didn't see myself, or recognize myself, in any of your statements. When I tell you that you missed the mark, that's precisely what you did.

Remember, you don't peg someone because you think you pegged them, you pegged them because you hit the mark. In my case, you failed miserably.

Sisyphus: Rrrrriiiiiiiggggggghhhhhtttttt t............ two years of blogging....two followers....no comments......

You see, this is an example of what I'm talking about when I say that you missed the mark. You insinuate that I have a "lonely" life based on my blog entry, and/or on what I've said here. You do realize that both that blog, and my posts here, are a small, sliver of a fraction of the totality of who I am? You don't know if I have a family or not. You don't know if I have a spouse or not. You don't know how many people I hang out with. You don't know how many people I interact with on a daily basis. You don't know what I do when I'm not destroying your side of the argument.

There's a crapload of things about me that you don't know about. Yet, you'd rather pull crap out of your ass and assume things about me, than to have the integrity to get the complete facts about me.

Sisyphus: You're here causing you're STARVING for attention, Chief.

WRONG. I'm here because one of my favorite activities involves debating... perpetual debates. Saying that I'm here due to "starving" for attention would be like saying that a hungry person, going to a McDonalds, is going there because he's "starving" for attention... and not food.

Sisyphus: But, you'll have to get it from others cause I've said my piece. I'm done.

I predict that you won't be done... that you'll come back here and prove me right, and you wrong, about what you'll eventually do.

Second, what part of HER don't you understand? Originally Posted by herfacechair

Me thinks thou doth protest too much

Are you that insecure about your own abilities that you have to ask ladies about their activities with other men? No wonder why you brought don't ask don't tell into the picture. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Is that what I said? No, I don't think so. I said they tell me. I did not say I asked.

I guess I could go on and on about you comprehension skills butt understand that you were still in the passion of fairy love. Take your time , put your thong back on and and slowly decompress. You'll be able to understand what you read before they spin the next Villiage People song!

Jesus, do women ''overtly advertise'' their sexuality now in the military? Originally Posted by WTF

Yes. Rules and regulations govern how women dress for duty. Rules for off duty dress code are not so stringent. There are some beautiful women in the military, and many do not try to hide that fact when they are off-duty (Daisy Duke shorts with a tube top and just the right amount of war paint renders a gentleman unable to stand up without embarrassing himself)

Do a web search and look for news articles pertaining to "fraternization." You'll find a score or more that deal with high ranking personnel. High ranking personnel are news worthy. Then consider that hundreds of such incidents occur among low ranking personnel who are prosecuted under the UCMJ and discharged. Yet, since these individuals are low ranking, they don't make the news.

Yes. Rules and regulations govern how women dress for duty. Rules for off duty dress code are not so stringent. There are some beautiful women in the military, and many do not try to hide that fact when they are off-duty (Daisy Duke shorts with a tube top and just the right amount of war paint renders a gentleman unable to stand up without embarrassing himself)

Do a web search and look for news articles pertaining to "fraternization." You'll find a score or more that deal with high ranking personnel. High ranking personnel are news worthy. Then consider that hundreds of such incidents occur among low ranking personnel who are prosecuted under the UCMJ and discharged. Yet, since these individuals are low ranking, they don't make the news. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm not sure what you are worried about? Are you worried that some gay guy is going to dress up off duty and that will entice you to throw down?

I'm not sure what you are worried about? Are you worried that some gay guy is going to dress up off duty and that will entice you to throw down? Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not worried. I just can't stand their antics. I find them disgusting on TV, where I can and do change the channel. Require me to live in close proximity 24/7 - 365 to such an individual, as I describe above, I'm fairly certain there will be a physical altercation because of one too many smart ass, off color remarks.

I invite you to take my place if you are so willing to "throw down." I'm just not into it, and call me what you may, I'm not going to change in that regard. You might be so inclined, but I'm not!

IBH, honest response. But from what I understand if they pull antics then they would be subject to the UCMJ? If they don't then the problem is really yours, isn't it?