LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-previo...050225114.html

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-previo...050225114.html Originally Posted by FlectiNonFrangi

* Lebanon 1983 - In September 1983, U.S. battleships anchored in the Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon shelled Syrian, Palestinian and Druze forces in the Shouf Mountains outside Beirut in support of the Lebanese army, during the complex civil war that began in 1975.

It was one of several actions that created a perception that the United States was taking sides in the war. A month later, Shi'ite Muslim suicide bombers blew up the U.S. Marine and French barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and 58 French paratroopers. President Ronald Reagan pulled U.S. forces out of Lebanon in February 1984. Lebanon's civil war raged on until 1990.

Numerous things are wrong with the above statement from the cited article. First off, the word "battleships". There was only one battleship, the U.S.S. New Jersey, and it didn't fire on Druze and Syrian positions until December -- well after the barracks bombing. Other U.S. vessels -- not "battleships" -- did fire on Druze and Syrian positions at an earlier date in support of the Lebanese Army and because the Marines in Beirut were being shelled, wounded and killed by Druze and Syrian artillery. Secondly, 241 American servicemen were killed: they were not all Marines, though most of them were. Third, Iran instigated the bombing, and an Iranian jihadist delivered the bomb and did so because of U.S. support for the former Shah and for supporting Iraq in its war against Iran; so, what the U.S. did or did not do in Beirut was of minor consequence when factoring why the barracks was bombed. Fourth, it was the Dimocrat Congress -- led by Tip O'Neill -- that forced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Beirut.

Much of the remaining article compares apples to oranges. Many of the article's proffered "examples" were legitimate, retaliatory measures undertaken by the U.S.; whereas, the U.S. has nothing at stake in present-day Syria.

Really, a DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress with the Senate being held by the Republicans 54 - 46.

House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. (D, Mass.), who had recently distanced himself from Reagan's policy, declared, "I'm more than pleased to know the phase-out is taking place, and the speedier the better."
Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr. (R, Tenn.) said, "I'm convinced the President has acted wisely and well given the present circumstances. The rest we'll take one day at a time."
Baker was echoed by House Minority leader Robert H. Michel (R, Ill.), who had openly urged a pullout. Michel called Reagan's action "a wise one" and added, "The important thing is that we are not simply leaving this situation before we know what is going to come out of all this turmoil."....




Colonel Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the U.S. 24th Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) deployed as peacekeepers in Beirut, said that the American and the French headquarters were targeted primarily because of “who we were and what we represented. … It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support [which fired a total of 360 5-inch rounds between 10:04 A.M. and 3:00 PM.] — which I strongly opposed for a week — to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on September 19 and that the French conducted an air strike on September 23 in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.”

A few of his thoughts on the Beirut bombing and the strategy of placing Marines in harms way.

When the Marine barracks was bombed, do you remember that event?
Very, very vividly. ... The loss of life [of] Marines was horrible to contemplate. The fact that I had been warning against this very thing didn't give me any slight satisfaction, I can assure of that. It was terrible to be proven right under such horrible circumstances. They should have been pulled out earlier. They were pulled out later.
I suggested many times that, to answer these people that were worried about Marines cutting and running and all that nonsense, to put them on ships, their normal environment. These Marine amphibious brigades were on their own ship, to bring them back and pull them out of this dangerous bulls-eye and put them on our ships where they could be protected until they were really needed for something useful, rather than just sitting on an airport.

What were the possibilities on how to react, and was it a successful response?
Oh, I think to some extent, it certainly showed there was going to be a response. There were the usual howls of outrage that we'd hit people who were not participating and all of that. But it was an immediate response, and it was at least in the general direction of the areas where these attacks have occurred. But we still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then.
Again, they have this ability to move around and shift around, day to day, and we have no actual knowledge of where they're going to be, because we don't know what their plans are. It's the importance of finding out what they're planning ahead of time that is the task of intelligence, and you have to have a very special kind of intelligence to do that; and you have to understand that this is going to involve spying. And it's going to be attacked by some people as a dirty business. What it is actually [doing] is giving a democracy eyes. And without eyes, the democracy's not going to remain a democracy very long. ...

Did taking U.S. forces out of Beirut seem, at that point, like Beirut as a whole was a failure of diplomacy?
No. Beirut was an absolutely inevitable outcome of doing what we did, of putting troops in with no mission that could be carried out. There was no agreement on either side of the pullback. You didn't need a buffer force. There's nothing more dangerous than in the middle of a furious prize fight, inserting a referee in range of both the fighters, both the contestants. That's what we did. ...

One of the Republican HOUSE members speaking out against the use of US troops in Lebanon in 1983.

The fundamental question is: What is the United States’ interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?… The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.

* Lebanon 1983 - In September 1983, U.S. battleships anchored in the Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon shelled Syrian, Palestinian and Druze forces in the Shouf Mountains outside Beirut in support of the Lebanese army, during the complex civil war that began in 1975.

It was one of several actions that created a perception that the United States was taking sides in the war. A month later, Shi'ite Muslim suicide bombers blew up the U.S. Marine and French barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and 58 French paratroopers. President Ronald Reagan pulled U.S. forces out of Lebanon in February 1984. Lebanon's civil war raged on until 1990.

Numerous things are wrong with the above statement from the cited article. First off, the word "battleships". There was only one battleship, the U.S.S. New Jersey, and it didn't fire on Druze and Syrian positions until December -- well after the barracks bombing. Other U.S. vessels -- not "battleships" -- did fire on Druze and Syrian positions at an earlier date in support of the Lebanese Army and because the Marines in Beirut were being shelled, wounded and killed by Druze and Syrian artillery. Secondly, 241 American servicemen were killed: they were not all Marines, though most of them were. Third, Iran instigated the bombing, and an Iranian jihadist delivered the bomb and did so because of U.S. support for the former Shah and for supporting Iraq in its war against Iran; so, what the U.S. did or did not do in Beirut was of minor consequence when factoring why the barracks was bombed. Fourth, it was the Dimocrat Congress -- led by Tip O'Neill -- that forced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Beirut.

Much of the remaining article compares apples to oranges. Many of the article's proffered "examples" were legitimate, retaliatory measures undertaken by the U.S.; whereas, the U.S. has nothing at stake in present-day Syria.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Dear Dipshit of the Year --

If presidents were reversed, you'd be pissing and moaning about Lebanon.

Colonel Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the U.S. 24th Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) deployed as peacekeepers in Beirut, said that the American and the French headquarters were targeted primarily because of “who we were and what we represented." Originally Posted by lostincypress

Yes, Lost-in-space, Geraghty said those words, but you've obviously failed to understand that Geraghty's sentiment is the same as the one I stated above: "what the U.S. did or did not do in Beirut was of minor consequence when factoring why the Marines were targeted": the Marines were "targeted primarily because of 'who we were and what we represented.'"

Geraghty, "It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support [which fired a total of 360 5-inch rounds between 10:04 A.M. and 3:00 PM.] — which I strongly opposed for a week — to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on September 19 and that the French conducted an air strike on September 23 in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.” Originally Posted by lostincypress

What's your point, Lost-in-space? No "battleships" were involved in those pre-October 23rd shellings, and you didn't prove differently, Lost-in-space!

Really, a DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress with the Senate being held by the Republicans 54 - 46.

House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. (D, Mass.), who had recently distanced himself from Reagan's policy, declared, "I'm more than pleased to know the phase-out is taking place, and the speedier the better."
Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr. (R, Tenn.) said, "I'm convinced the President has acted wisely and well given the present circumstances. The rest we'll take one day at a time."
Baker was echoed by House Minority leader Robert H. Michel (R, Ill.), who had openly urged a pullout. Michel called Reagan's action "a wise one" and added, "The important thing is that we are not simply leaving this situation before we know what is going to come out of all this turmoil.".... Originally Posted by lostincypress

One of the Republican HOUSE members speaking out against the use of US troops in Lebanon in 1983, etc., etc. Originally Posted by lostincypress

Your statements above neither negate nor diminish the role Dimotards played, Lost-in-space, e.g.:

O'NEILL PREDICTS HOUSE WILL BACK RESOLUTION ON LEBANON PULLOUT
By MARTIN TOLCHIN
Published: January 27, 1984

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26— Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. predicted today that the House of Representatives would approve a resolution urging the withdrawal of United States marines from Lebanon. O'Neill's statement came as Senate Dimotards reaffirmed their opposition to the 18-month deployment of the marines in Beirut.

Both actions reflected the Dimotards' disappointment in President Reagan's discussion of Lebanon in his State of the Union Message. The Dimotards had withheld their proposals until after hearing what the President had to say, and several Dimotards noted that the President devoted only one paragraph to the issue.

Both House and Senate Dimotards introduced resolutions calling for the withdrawal of the marines....

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Dimotard of Delaware, introduced a resolution urging that ''the U.S. should undertake immediate efforts to arrange the prompt withdrawal of the multinational force from Lebanon.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/27/wo...n-pullout.html



HOUSE DIMOTARDS DRAFT RESOLUTION ON BEIRUT PULLOUT
By STEVEN V. ROBERTS
Published: February 1, 1984

Seven Dimotard Presidential candidates joined in opposing a military presence in Lebanon but differed on the arms race.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 - House Dimotard leaders agreed tonight on a Congressional resolution that would urge President Reagan to begin ''the prompt and orderly withdrawal'' of the Marine contingent in Lebanon.

The leaders ignored protests in their own ranks, however, and declined to include a specific timetable for the removal of the troops...

Language Is Critical of Reagan

The leaders maintain that a firm date would place too severe a restriction on President Reagan, open the Dimotards to political criticism and perhaps touch off a constitutional crisis. But in response to the critics, the language of the resolution criticizing the President was ''toughened considerably'' from earlier drafts, according to House aides.

The proposed resolution, which will be presented to a caucus of all House Dimotards on Wednesday, also urges the President to issue a report within 30 days detailing a plan for removal of the marines and their replacement by troops from other nations.

The statement was written by two leading House members, Lee H. Hamilton (Dimotard) of Indiana and Dante B. Fascell (Dimotard) of Florida, and then refined today by a group of lawmakers appointed by Dimotard leaders to monitor the Lebanon situation....

With the economic recovery continuing, some Democrats view Lebanon as their most promising political issue this year...

Mr. Biden maintained, a ''mini constitutional crisis'' could ensue, with Congress insisting on withdrawal and the President resisting.

A simple resolution, with no date, ''would make it clear to the President that there is no longer anything remotely approaching a bipartisan consensus to let the marines stay for 18 months,'' Mr. Biden added.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/01/wo...t-pullout.html

Caspar Weinberger Sec of Def 1981 - 1987 A few of his thoughts on the Beirut bombing and the strategy of placing Marines in harms way, etc., etc. Originally Posted by lostincypress

Lost-in-space, those Weinberger remarks are from 2001; new information has been made public since 2001. For example:


The complicity of Iran in the 1983 attack was established conclusively at trial [2003] by the testimony of Admiral James A. Lyons, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy and Operation from 1983-85. As deputy chief, Admiral Lyons routinely received intelligence information about American military forces. On October 25, 1983, the chief of naval intelligence notified Admiral Lyons of an intercept of a message between Tehran and Damascus that had been made on or about September 26, 1983. The message had been sent from MOIS to the Iranian ambassador to Syria, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, who presently serves as an adviser to the president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami.[FN12] The message directed the Iranian ambassador to contact Hussein Musawi, the leader of the terrorist group Islamic Amal, and to instruct him to have his group instigate attacks against the multinational coalition in Lebanon, and "to take a spectacular action against the United States Marines." Admiral Lyons testified that he has absolutely no doubt of the authenticity or reliability of the message, which he took immediately to the secretary of the navy and chief of naval operations, who viewed it, as he did, as a "24-karat gold document." [FN13] ...

[E]vidence was presented at trial that Mohtashemi did proceed to contact a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard ("IRG"), and instructed him to instigate the Marine barracks bombing.[FN14] The Court heard the videotaped deposition testimony of a Hezbollah member known by the pseudonym "Mahmoud," who was a member of the group that carried out the October 23 attack.[FN15] Mahmoud, a Lebanese Shi'ite Muslim, testified that Ambassador Mohtashemi contacted a man named Kanani, the leader of the Lebanese headquarters of the IRG. Mohtashemi instructed Kanani to go forward with attacks that had been planned against the 24th MAU and the French paratroopers.[FN16]

*7 During this meeting, Kanani and the Hezbollah members formed a plan to carry out simultaneous attacks against the American and French barracks in Lebanon.[FN20] Mahmoud described the meeting and its aftermath: They got the order. They met and adopted the operation against the Marines and the French barracks in the same time...

As testified by Mahmoud, a 19-ton truck was disguised so that it would resemble a water delivery truck that routinely arrived at the Beirut International Airport, which was located near the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, and modified the truck so that it could transport an explosive device. On the morning of October 23, 1983, members of Hezbollah ambushed the real water delivery truck before it arrived at the barracks. An observer was placed on a hill near the barracks to monitor the operation. The fake water delivery truck [rigged with the explosive device] then set out for the barracks, driven by Ismalal Ascari, an Iranian.

At approximately 6:25 a.m. Beirut time, the truck drove past the Marine barracks. As the truck circled in the large parking lot behind the barracks, it increased its speed. The truck crashed through a concertina wire barrier and a wall of sandbags, and entered the barracks.[FN21] When the truck reached the center of the barracks, the bomb in the truck detonated.

The resulting explosion was the largest non-nuclear explosion that had ever been detonated on the face of the Earth. The force of its impact ripped locked doors from their doorjambs at the nearest building, which was 256 feet away. Trees located 370 feet away were shredded and completely exfoliated. At the traffic control tower of the Beirut International Airport, over half a mile away, all of the windows shattered. The support columns of the Marine barracks, which were made of reinforced concrete, were stretched, as an expert witness described, "like rubber bands." The explosion created a crater in the earth over eight feet deep. The four-story Marine barracks was reduced to fifteen feet of rubble.

The force of the explosion was equal to between 15,000 to 21,000 pounds of TNT. FBI and ATF explosives experts both concluded that the explosive material was "bulk form" pentaerythritol tetranitrate, or PETN. Danny A. Defenbaugh, the on-scene FBI forensic explosive investigator, testified as to his findings: *8[W]e were able to, through the forensic residue analysis, identify the explosive material, and it was unconsumed particles of PETN .... PETN is a primary explosive that is manufactured commercially and PETN is a primary explosive that is manufactured commercially and primarily for U.S. military purposes. It is a primary explosive that is used in detonating cord. Detonating cord is nothing more than a plastic and fiber-wrapped cord that has the PETN, which looks like a white powder ... that is then extruded inside of that cord .... In this case, it was not [consumed]; we found unconsumed particles of PETN. That was just like we had found also in the American Embassy bombing. What that means is that it had to have been from a bulk explosive, it had to have been from a manufacturer. Defenbaugh explained that when the commercially-manufactured form of PETN is detonated, it is completely consumed in the ensuing explosion. The presence of unconsumed particles of PETN at the Marine barracks blast site, therefore, indicated that the PETN used in the bomb had not been the standard commercially-available form of the explosive. Instead, it had been the raw "bulk form" of PETN, which is not generally sold commercially. In the Middle East, the bulk form of PETN is produced by state-sponsored manufacturers for military purposes. In 1983, bulk form PETN was not manufactured in the nation of Lebanon. However, at that time, bulk form PETN was manufactured within the borders of Iran.

http://perleslaw.com/pdf/peterson.pdf

1984 story? Jesus, weren't you still bustin rocks then, IBIdiot?

I am particularly impressed at the way you edited these stories and headlines, just like you did the Dipshit of the Year poll.

Redneck dipshit! I just love watching ExNYer hand you your dirty ass every day!!! I think we ALL do! M

Good research. I remember this.

So now I guess we will stick our nose in another Middle-East quagmire, not having learned anything from 1984.

I just love watching ExNYer hand you your dirty ass every day!!! I think we ALL do! M Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

+1

+1 Originally Posted by bigtex

But then you're so damn ignorant, BigKoTex, the BUTTer Bar Asshat, you probably also think your Cougars had a winning season last year.

But then you're so damn ignorant, BigKoTex, the BUTTer Bar Asshat, you probably also think your Cougars had a winning season last year. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And that is supposed to make sense?

And that is supposed to make sense? Originally Posted by bigtex

Your ignorance is profound, BigKoTex: the BUTTerBar Asshat.

Your ignorance is profound, BigKoTex: the BUTTerBar Asshat. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There you have it folks. To an IDIOTit does make sense!

Really, a DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress with the Senate being held by the Republicans 54 - 46.

House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. (D, Mass.), who had recently distanced himself from Reagan's policy, declared, "I'm more than pleased to know the phase-out is taking place, and the speedier the better."
Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr. (R, Tenn.) said, "I'm convinced the President has acted wisely and well given the present circumstances. The rest we'll take one day at a time."
Baker was echoed by House Minority leader Robert H. Michel (R, Ill.), who had openly urged a pullout. Michel called Reagan's action "a wise one" and added, "The important thing is that we are not simply leaving this situation before we know what is going to come out of all this turmoil."....






Colonel Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the U.S. 24th Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) deployed as peacekeepers in Beirut, said that the American and the French headquarters were targeted primarily because of “who we were and what we represented. … It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support [which fired a total of 360 5-inch rounds between 10:04 A.M. and 3:00 PM.] — which I strongly opposed for a week — to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on September 19 and that the French conducted an air strike on September 23 in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.” Originally Posted by lostincypress

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id413.htm
http://warisacrime.org/content/possi...truction-beiru


You remind of another poster here...who could that be?

You are welcome...