Speakeasy forum

General discussion

!*!*!*!*!BREAKING NEWS!*!*!*!

by jonah jones / October 26, 2008 4:04 AM PDT

US helicopters are reported to have crossed over from Iraq and attacked targets in Syria!!

so far unconfirmed by the US authorities


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: !*!*!*!*!BREAKING NEWS!*!*!*!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: !*!*!*!*!BREAKING NEWS!*!*!*!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
If true,
by critic411 / October 26, 2008 4:05 AM PDT

5 years too late

Collapse -
(NT) Congress prevented it?
by JP Bill / October 26, 2008 4:07 AM PDT
In reply to: If true,
Collapse -
by jonah jones / October 26, 2008 4:25 AM PDT
In reply to: If true,

that may just be the most idiotic reply ever posted....

you want another Arab state really pissed off at you?

one that has a standing army of over a quarter of a million
soldiers (and another 400,000 reservists) and a very well
equipped air force (courtesy of Russia)

good luck to you...


Collapse -
That may just be the most idiotic reply ever posted...
by EdHannigan / October 26, 2008 4:58 AM PDT
In reply to: good?

Shaking in my boots.



Collapse -
Don't look to me when it concerns attacking terrorist.......
by Tony Holmes / October 26, 2008 4:21 AM PDT
Collapse -
Where is the manpower coming from
by Angeline Booher / October 26, 2008 7:51 AM PDT

Are you willing to have the draft return?

Wasn't the draft in effect for 'Nam?

Are you in the reserve? Are you too old to be called back?

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
Nix on Draft
by James Denison / October 26, 2008 12:11 PM PDT

It's a stupid idea trying to get unwilling and usually unqualified people to enter the military and help demoralize it with their whiney ways, and for what, so they can come back and show disrespect for their fellow soldiers? No, the military should never have to depend on draftees again.

Collapse -
While no fan of ignoring enemies, or
by Roger NC / October 26, 2008 9:50 AM PDT

of appeasement, or of turning blind eyes, there is little doubt our military ground forces are already stretched.

If we're just going to bomb every suspected site, and take what bombs we (and our allies, Israel in particular) get hit back with, I guess we can do it.

To take and hold on the ground on more fronts may be difficult.

Hopefully it won't be the same as Germany attacking Russia in spite of their peace treaty.

We're a great country still, and our military people are excellent, doing well in-spite of problems with logistics created by bureaucracy by home.

But how much trained manpower do we still have that is anywhere near their optimum condition with the strain they have been under?

Our troops will gallantly struggle to achieve whatever is asked of them. Will the rest of the citizens do the same?

One seemingly likely results is pressure by Syria and other Arab states in the region is for the US to leave the region sooner than later, no matter if state of Iraq is stable or not. And pressure by them on Iraq government to push us to leave too.

This could even extend to refusing us bases and air passages by many of the nations or the region.

With apparently little information yet on why this was deemed necessary, any evaluation of the wisdom of the act must be postpone. But the risk is very high, I certainly hope the expected gain was equal to the risk. If not, someone screwed up badly.


Collapse -
There has not been any news reports
by Angeline Booher / October 26, 2008 7:47 AM PDT
In reply to: First BBC coverage...

...... lately of militants crossing into Iraq from Syria as there was for such a long time before. Whether or not that problem still existed on any scale has not been addressed.

What I don't want is any fanning of the flames. Our troops are stretched so thin. Some of the units at Ft. Cam[bell are serving their 4th rotations. It is different in Iraq because there is no R&R there. The men and women are exhausted, mentally and physically. I think those so hot to fight should be ready to call for a draft.

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
Let's surrender!!
by EdHannigan / October 26, 2008 8:02 AM PDT

Oh...we're going to anyway.


Collapse -
Why surrender?
by Angeline Booher / October 26, 2008 9:30 AM PDT
In reply to: Let's surrender!!

That is always the comment when I or anyne else comes to the defense of our worn out warriors.

What are you going to do, hold their coats?

If it takes a draft to fight, a draft there should be, and those who are so blasted brave until they think they might be called up should salute and say, "Yessir!!!"

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
and if we showed them
by conservers / October 26, 2008 10:53 AM PDT
In reply to: Why surrender?

support in the news instead of typical cut and run. we would have ended the war sooner

Collapse -
That's what you are advocating, isn't it?
by EdHannigan / October 26, 2008 11:07 AM PDT
In reply to: Why surrender?

Yes, it is.

Bye bye.

Collapse -
Funny how you turned that around on Angie.
by grimgraphix / October 26, 2008 11:58 AM PDT

She says the troops are stretched thin and we need to show restraint or call up a draft. Very clear cut, what she is saying.

You, on the other hand, leave a couple of open ended sentences, and...

What a brave, brave...

And then there was that other thing you...

Just proves what an...

Feel free to fill in the blanks how ever you see fit. Wink

Collapse -
Very clear cut, what she is saying.
by EdHannigan / October 26, 2008 12:06 PM PDT

Yes it is.

No need to read the rest of your garbage, so I didn't.

Collapse -
Isn't that what LBJ did?
by James Denison / October 26, 2008 12:16 PM PDT

Oh, those were the heady days of Democrat fervor!

Collapse -
When pressed, those so eager to send
by Angeline Booher / October 26, 2008 9:02 PM PDT

.... anybody except themselves into battle will volunteer only to hold their coats. Sad

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
What bull...
by EdHannigan / October 26, 2008 9:13 PM PDT

the level of hysteria is astounding, You really need to get a grip.

Collapse -
Angeline needs to get a grip???????
by Josh K / October 26, 2008 11:17 PM PDT
In reply to: What bull...

She is one of the most level-headed, even-handed people I have ever known. YOU get a grip, Ed.

Collapse -
Really? I'm still trying to figger out if Angeline is....
by James Denison / October 27, 2008 3:04 AM PDT

...for or against the Draft. Seems both ways to me.

Me personally, I'm against the Draft under almost all circumstances, but if they have one it should be ONLY for those over age 30 and under age 50. Our best and younger should have a chance first to bring along the next generation. I don't believe a Draft should exist for anything that doesn't involve the direct defense of our own borders and territories.

I think what's bothering some Democrats is they can't have a war without a Draft since most Americans don't want to serve in a military when they are in power, and the Republicans can have a top notch military even without the Draft. It says a lot about who military personnel actually trust when it comes to wars.

Collapse -
Do you have....
by Josh K / October 27, 2008 3:26 AM PDT

...enlistment statistics to back up your claims about people not wanting to serve when Democrats are in power?

Collapse -
Wow... that line of reasoning is just ... wow
by grimgraphix / October 27, 2008 3:32 AM PDT
I think what's bothering some Democrats is they can't have a war without a Draft since most Americans don't want to serve in a military when they are in power, and the Republicans can have a top notch military even without the Draft. It says a lot about who military personnel actually trust when it comes to wars.

That is just... wow.
Collapse -
some of us did volunteer
by conservers / October 27, 2008 1:12 AM PDT

and were screwed by the cut and run crowd as it same crowd now

they said the surge wouldn't work and we see how wrong they were.

Collapse -
The "Surge" versus the "Cut and Run" crowd
by grimgraphix / October 27, 2008 2:49 AM PDT

It must be nice to go through life believing that a few simple slogans supporting a mindless dogma can explain everything... however, I would like to point out a couple uncomfortable realities.

The "Surge" was an idea that was resisted by Dan Rumsfeld for years. Upon his recommendations, neither the President, nor the Vice President pushed for any troop buildup until US and Iraqi civilian casualties had started to reach tragic levels. In short... the current leadership was against the surge for years... until they were for it. During the last US election, the GOP pundits called this... Flip Flopping.

Given the fact that the Bush administration refused to raise troop levels to effective levels, the "Cut and Run" crowd advocated the only other choice the US government was being given by the current war strategists of that time. In other words, if our leadership won't fight the war to win it, then we should withdrawal.

IMHO... the troops were "screwed" by their leadership and the lack of sufficient numbers to fight the good fight. I started arguing on this forum for a troop buildup long before the "Surge" was initiated. However, I have nothing against the "cut and run" crowd, because their agendas showed more concern for reaching a viable conclusion to the Iraqi conflict than anything being initiated by Bush (et al.) at the time. Yes, the "cut and run" folks were wrong, but let us just remember who got the US into the mess to begin with.

Collapse -
Yep. Nothing like sending in
by Angeline Booher / October 27, 2008 3:41 AM PDT

.... too few ill- equipped troops because Rumsfeld was too arrogant to listen to those who knew better.

As far as "The Surge", paying the Shiites $$$ to quit their attacks and cooperate with our and the Iraqi forces is what settled things down.

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
Talking about a run for the money
by Roger NC / October 26, 2008 12:09 PM PDT

You could have certainly given Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau a run for their money as grumpy old men.


Collapse -
That made sense how?
by EdHannigan / October 26, 2008 12:12 PM PDT

I was stating my opinion. So sorry if you don't like it.

Actually, tough if you don't like it. It was honest and forthright.

Collapse -
You're welcome to your opinion
by Roger NC / October 26, 2008 12:19 PM PDT
In reply to: That made sense how?

I doubt if anyone here expects you to have a good one of anyone else here anyway.

Happy Halloween, enjoy the trick or treaters and pumpkin pie.


Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?