Obamabots Think That Revised History is Actual History

These posts aren't based on a thread that I participated on. I came across these responses while reading a Politico article about China's declared air defense zone. Instead of posting there, I've posted my replies here.

It's blatantly obvious that those that slammed Ronald Reagan weren't alive... or were too young... to be aware of what was going on during the 1980s.

I started following the news, as a news junkie, since 1982. I sided with Ronald Reagan when I saw what he was doing. I followed events all around the world. There's a lot more to what happened during the '80s than what kids are learning today.

These Obama zombies are ignorant to a key trend. Every democrat president, starting with President John F. Kennedy, has been incompetent when it came to foreign policy.

President Ronald Reagan Won the Cold War-Delver Rootnose is Wrong

delver rootnose: like I said revisionist history. Economics took down the USSR. That and WAR. The money they spent on Afghanistan and trying to outspend the US military is what crushed the USSR.

And Ronald Reagan was behind all of that.

Ronald Reagan spent decades of his life, prior to becoming president, combating communism through words. This started when he was in Hollywood. He took actions countering their agenda in that community.

He understood that economy wise, the communist system couldn't uphold in the real world.

Simply put, a command economy... the type that liberals/progressives in the US want... is one of the most inefficient forms of economy that you could have. Even the Soviets back-peddled a bit from pure communism; they implemented a little "free market" here and there just to uphold their system.

Starting in the 1960s, the Soviet Union beefed up their military. By the early 1980s, they surpassed us militarily. This happened at a high cost for them though. The Soviet economy was at full capacity supporting this arms buildup, as well as the arms race.

Ronald Reagan knew that if he forced the Soviets to race harder, their economy would collapse. So he built our military up. He didn't need to go as far as the Soviets did; all he had to do was "flex" the U.S.'s muscles.

He also pursued the Strategic Defense Initiative, nicked named "Star Wars." He knew that the Soviets would knowingly race a losing race to try to offset that... thus causing them to drain more money from their economy.

Ronald Reagan also remembered the support that the Soviets gave our enemies earlier during the Cold War. One specific event was in Vietnam. So, when the Soviets tried to set themselves up for an "honorable retreat" from Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan saw an opportunity for revenge.

This was a chance to not only get revenge, but to put even more pressure on the Soviet economy.

He sent money and supplies to the Pakistani version of the CIA. The orders? Aid and assist the local Afghani. Thanks to that assistance, Ronald Reagan was able to put more pressure on the Soviet Economy.

He didn't stop there either. He started many initiatives that he knew that the United States could accomplish... but the Soviets couldn't.

Ronald Reagan, working with the British and the Vatican, worked to weaken the Soviet Union.

The selection of Mikhail Gorbachev was an attempt to fix a system that wasn't repairable. At any rate, the Soviet Union got weaker BECAUSE of, and not despite of, Ronald Reagan's policies.

I remember this clearly, as I started to follow the news back in the early '80s.

Ronald Reagan was KEY to the downfall of the Soviet Union.

delver rootnose: We are going the way of the USSR because of our security state spending and meddling in other countries affairs.

We're going by the way of the USSR in that the Democrats are succeeding in getting many of their policies implemented. This goes back to the beginning of Ronald Reagan's crusade against the communists.

Back in the 1930s, the Soviets began an information and society adjustment campaign in this country. They linked up with communists, and communist sympathizers in the US, and gave them money and advice.

What was their plan?

Infiltrate America's opinion leading institutions. This included school faculty, Hollywood, government, etc. They failed to make inroads into the Republican Party. They succeeded very well infiltrating the Democratic Party.

Result? The Democrat Party continues to shift to the left. It has gotten to the point that the Communist Party of the USA tends to endorse Democratic presidential candidates.

Our move to implement more progressive policies brings us closer to socialism.

Our presence in other countries is necessary. Want a stable US economy? That heavily depends on how well we could guarantee that our economy can get the resources it needs. Those resources are extracted from the ground, processed, transported over large bodies of water, then imported into the United States.

If we're not able to secure those sources, and transportation routes, you could kiss your standard of living goodbye.

The United States isn't the only country in the world that's leveraging its military. It's not the only one leveraging its other influences to ensure economic prosperity. Having political stability in other parts of the world plays a key role in all of this.

If we weren't doing what we're doing now, another country would step in and do it.

Advance to the 21st Century. Look at Detroit, Michigan. This is what'll happen to the United States if the Democrats have their way.

delver rootnose: The only reason we haven't failed is we have a better credit rating and our creditors are the Chinese, the Saudis and the American people. And guess who the GOP would rather pay off first in the default fight. It isn't the US citizens.

The main reason we haven't failed yet is that the GOP is preventing the Democrats from passing policies that'll guarantee failure. The Chinese are one group of creditors. Others include Japan, the UK, and other countries, as well as the US citizens.

The US government is going to honor maturing accounts according to the rules affecting those accounts. It doesn't matter if you're a foreign investor or a US investor.

The GOP is big on helping the US citizens... that's precisely why they voted against the Affordable Care Act. That's why they tried to defund it. That's why they continue to stand in the way of other Democrat destructive policies.

Gumpchun is Blind to the Fact that Every Democrat President Since the '60s Was Incompetent With Foreign Policy

Gumpchun: Yeah, we all recall how tough Ronald Reagan was in the minds of aging white rednecks.

Chances are real strong that they were old enough to know what was going on, in the world, during Reagan's presidency. If that doesn't describe you, then you're trying to argue against first hand experiences. You're doing so with your own second or third hand information.

Gumpchun: The reality was that Reagan sent the Marines into Lebanon and got 300 of them killed, then packed up and left with his tail between his legs.

Get your history straight.

After that attack, both the US and France launched retaliatory air strikes. The US struck from the air and from sea. Since Iran was behind the attacks, the US increased intelligence support to Iraq, which was fighting Iran at the time. The culmination of that was Operation Preying Mantis, which destroyed Iran's upper hand during their war with Iraq. This led to the end of that war.

We didn't need to stay in Lebanon. There was no real need for us to remain there.

Gumpchun: Then Reagan paid off Iran with armaments so he could fund his war against poor South America civilians.

It looks like you need to get your geography straight as well.

The Contras were fighting a Soviet/Cuban backed government in Central America. This represented an extended Soviet influence... in our own back yard. This is something that we had to turn around. The Democrat Congress, always bent on policies that harm the US, stopped funding the Contras.

Ronald Reagan had to continue to deal with the communist threat in Central America. Had we failed to support the Contras, more countries would've turned towards communism. Back then, the economic situation in Latin America favored the creation of one communist state after another.

This would've given the Soviet Union a strategic advantage relative to us... in our own backyard.

Seeing the bigger picture, his administration worked a deal to where the US would back supply the Israelis... who'd supply the Iranians with weapons they were already using. In return, the US got paid for the weapons that the Israelis provided to the Iranians.

They also attempted to release American hostages in Lebanon during this period. 

Thanks to our continuing to support the Contras, Central America is enjoying democracy in place of dictatorship. It's now a popular retirement and tourist destination.

Our failure to do that would've meant instability in our own backyard till this day. Undocumented immigration to the U.S. would've been a lot higher today to.

Gumpchun: Reagan talked big and ran when he hit real resistance.

Wrong. I followed Reagan in the news. The liberal media was harder on him, back then, than they were on President Bush early this century.

Ronald Reagan went against all sorts of resistance, but he persevered. He stood up to the challenge... as opposed to "Caligula", who, through indecisiveness and lack of leadership, is emboldening our enemies today.

Gumpchun: Obama killed Bin Laden and deposed Gaddafy, both now silent from the grave.

I'm sorry, but the SEALs killed Bin Laden, Obama didn't kill Bin Laden. He most certainly didn't depose Kaddafi. Oblablahblah took a backseat to the Libyan operation. It was the rebels on the ground that deposed of Kaddafi, with the help of our NATO allies.

And get this, we wouldn't have been able to track down Osama Bin Laden had it not been for policies that President Bush contributed to putting in place. Obama happened to be the lucky guy who was at the right place at the right time.

Gumpchun: Dems are smart AND tough, something aging toothless goobers and chickenhawks on the right have such a bad record on.

History contradicts your assumptions.

Kennedy's failure, to authorize the US Navy to do its part during the Bay of Pigs invasion, turned what would've been a victory into defeat... signaling to Nikita Khrushchev that the US was weak. This encouraged Khrushchev to deploy missiles to Cuba.

In order to get these missiles out, we agreed to close one of our overseas positions. When all was said and done, we were at a weaker posture, relative to the Soviets, than where we were before.

Both Kennedy and Johnson engaged in a "dog chasing tail" strategy in Vietnam. Nixon came in with the intent to win it. Had his plans been carried through all the way to the end, we would've had complete victory during the Vietnam War.

It was the Democratic Congress that pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory. They cut funding to the South Vietnamese government. This guaranteed our losing the Vietnam War politically. We won it militarily, thanks to Nixon.

We lost Iran, as an ally, during Carter's administration. Yes, he could've done something in the run up, but he was too weak to do it... he also gutted the US military, Clinton style.

Speaking of which, Clinton's lack of balls with his foreign policies emboldened Al-Qaeda. When they struck in 9/11, they were expecting more of the same Clinton style response.

The cold hard reality is that most democrat politicians are appeasers and not fighters. As far as being "smart"? They're so clueless about how the real economy works that their policies drag the economy down... and frustrate economic recovery.

Also, most of your so called "Chicken Hawks" happen to be war veterans that disagree with your messiah and you.

Gumpchun: What we need to do with China is immediately send numerous flights and ships into this bogus zone, say it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper, and show China their belligerence won't be tolerated. Stand by.

With a Democrat in the White House? ROTFLMFAO!

You do realize that we've been doing this for decades, do you? We've always had a naval presence in the seas covered by China's declared air defense zone.

Our sending those two planes to the Senkaku Islands was an extension of that policy. This wasn't an example of Democrats flexing their muscles. Oh, and get this... our government has temporarily agreed to back off demanding that China undo that air defense zone.

I will Reply, no Matter how Long it Takes!

"Even if I don't get back with you immediately, the next week, the next month, the next season, the next year, the next decade, etc, I will get back with you!" -- What I say to the opposition

I went through my old files the other day and deleted those that I didn't need. It's a good thing that I checked the documents before deleting them. I came across the draft for these series of replies.

Boy was I relieved!

I remembered this exchange from the Black Hawk Down 93 Forums (BHD93). I wasn't able to find these until recently.

I was one of their posting members. I saw a post comparing the US and Chinese militaries, then jumped in and generated my response. It was my first post ever on the board. Nobody complained, or demanded that I post an introduction, or add more stuff to my profile.

Since not that much went on with that board, I lurked it from time to time. Seeing that "brain" type posts were missing, I figured that I'd throw a poll in. It asked a question, and then listed options.

The responses?

A bunch of idiots, including one of the administrators, attacked me. Back then, I was in the Navy. Many of my fellow Sailors weren't hostile to "brain" type topics. I thought that I'd meet the same kind of reception with an Army veteran audience.

The reactions proved otherwise. Was this because of them being Army veterans?

I had since joined the Army, as an infantryman. I deployed to Iraq as an infantryman; being boots on the ground on the 4 year anniversary of this exchange. That experience removed the "Army factor" from a possible explanation of the stupidity, ignorance, and resistance... in response to being required to exercise one's brain.

The Soldiers that I served with back then were more like the Sailors that I served with before them. They were pretty much open to "brain" type topics.

So, it was just the brain dead idiots that attacked me that demonstrated hostility to being required to use their brains.

I submitted these next series of posts. These posts weren't visible, as the administrators put me in "needs moderation" mode.

Black Hawk Down 93 (BHD93) Forum's 10thFO Reacts Negatively to Having his Brain Hurt

[Quote]Originally posted by 10thFO on Jan 22 2006, 10:40 PM

I really don't give a flying feck to be honest with you.  I think your an idiot to be honest with you.  What the hell is this board to you?  Some school project?  Since this was your first post, i'm almost willing to forgive you but not really who the hell are you. [/quote]

Your math is a little off; the above was my second post, not my first post. Perhaps you should've thought before you posted. Are you sure that you have the right person identified as the idiot? It's one thing to call someone an idiot, without knowing him. It's another to be an idiot and claim that someone's second post was their first one.

Pardon me if I generated a post that required some thinking at the end. What was that board to me? It was a place where I hoped to engage in intelligent discussions. I've managed to do that on other boards. Your post shows that you're not one for discussions requiring thinking and putting thought to "paper."

I thought that I would post a thought provoking post in the "Miscellaneous Discussion" section of your message board. I've done this on another forum, with a much younger audience. So far, I've received far more mature responses from them... than what I gotten at the Black Hawk Down 93 forums. 

Black Hawk Down 93 (BHD3) Forum's Diamond Back 11 asks a Rhetorical Question in Response to Hypocrisy on the Board

[quote]Originally posted by Diamondback11 on Jan 22 2006, 11:49 PM

Good question Rob...what the hell is this board to anyone anymore?
[/quote]

Traffic went down on that site. Then, I post a miscellaneous topic in the miscellaneous forum, and all hell broke loose. I thought that section was for miscellaneous discussions.

Black Hawk Down (BHD93) Forum's Jasonglh Didn't Complain About my Profile After my First Post, Dismisses Thought Provoking Second Post

[quote]Originally posted by jasonglh on Jan 23 2006, 12:52 AM

Outspoken you have been here since July 05 and made 2 posts.  The 2nd of which is nonsensical at best, your profile is a gaping hole and still no introduction post.  How about filling in some blanks or hitting the road.  [/quote]

The first post consisted of me spoon feeding the readers deep information and analysis. You guys didn't have a problem with that post, or question my profile. But, heaven forbid that I force you guys to think, then it's another story.

I served onboard the [   ] off the coast of Somalia during the last two months of US involvement. One of the administrators had seen my name on another Somalia related website. He sent me an E-mail inviting me to join this website. I'm still in and have participated in the beginning phases of OIF.

I'll look at the other introductions and put something together to post as a personal introduction to this board.

I'm surprised that I wasn't required to provide this information... after I had placed a post detailing the advantage that our current military has over the Chinese military.

For those that want to get a better idea about my typical posts, other than what I do in this thread, my first post on this message board is typical of the posts that I normally make. I'll come in when there is something valuable that I really have to contribute.

However, I've lurked here on and off for the past few months and noticed that this board is not as busy as the other message boards that I frequent. The above post was an attempt to jump start a thought provoking thread and get things moving in the "miscellaneous" section.

Black Hawk Down 93 (BHD93) Forum's Infidel Reminds Other Posters About the Message Board's Intent

[quote]Originally posted by Infidel on Jan 23 2006, 09:06 AM

The forums aren't as active as they once were, but some good stuff is still happening via this site. It seems several folks who were involved in Somalia have contributed during recent months, there are contacts for people who want to send packages to deployed soldiers, etc...
It's also been a good place for discussion of further operations in the Middle East -- I know I've learned a fair amount, especially from people who have BTDT and know what the heck they're talking about.[/quote]

Apparently, the people that knew what they were talking about didn't frequent the thread I started.

If everybody talked about Somalia, posted similar threads, similar topics that fit one category, what would be the point of making posts here if people are board with that topic? If everybody agreed on everything?

Now, I'm not saying that we should not talk about Somalia. I do believe that those that have served there should come together. They should be able to make sure that Somalia doesn't become a forgotten conflict.

And this is how I see the miscellaneous discussions of any forum. The miscellaneous discussions forum is a place for posts like the one that started this thread. It's something different for people that want a change of pace from the other forums.

Black Hawk Down 93 (BHD93) Forum's Grunt Lives up to the "Knuckle Dragger" Description that Other Services Label the Ground Services

[quote]Originally posted by Grunt on Jan 23 2006, 07:27 PM'

Yeah, I was looking for that Poll Choice too.

[   ]broken, you bring new meaning to "Miscellaneous Discussion."
Grunt[/quote]

One isn't needed. I figured that people that didn't care about this poll, or what it was discussing, would've been smart enough to take a course of action consistent with their wishes. Meaning, those that don't care about the post or the poll could've simply chosen not to address it.

One shouldn't have to wait for an option when the options were presented.

If a message board's miscellaneous section isn't for miscellaneous discussions, then what would it be for, Gruntingonaknob?

Black Hawk Down 93 (BHD93) Forum's 10thFO Proves his Drunken Stupidity

[quote]Originally posted by 10thFO Jan 23 2006, 08:58 PM 

I'm glad you guys found this out in left field.  Wife is out of town and I was drunk when I read it, but I still can't comprehend wtf it was about anyways.  Drive on people.  And yes miscellaneous and stupid would be a good place for it. [/quote]

First, that post was mainstream, based on the other message boards that I've posted on. The majority of the posters that responded to my thread were among the dumbest that I've addressed.

Second, it helps to be sober when reading something that involves induction and reasoning. Using the term "drive on" in the same statement as "being drunk" misplaces that term and fits in the "stupid" category as well... especially given the number of Soldiers... and service members in general... that drink and drive.  

Military Blog "This Aint Hell," Exposes Air Force Amy, aka Donice Armstrong, as a Phony Air Force Veteran

The military blog, "This Aint Hell, but you could see it from here," has veteran writers that post about veteran interest issues. Exposing military fakers and embellishers is one of their favorite posting topics. Fakers and embellishers are people who didn't serve, but claim they did, or people who did serve, but embellish their service.

This blog's authors, and readers, send requests to the National Personal Records Center. This center is a central collection for veteran records. Anybody can request specific information about a veteran from this center. If the veteran's records can be found, the National Personal Records Center will send the requestor information that's releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.

Someone did just that on Donice Armstrong, stage name "Air Force Amy," based on her biographic information. The National Personnel Records Center came back empty handed. Usually, if you give them a birth place, or social security number, they'd be able to find a veteran's records. Air Force Amy/Donice Armstrong's bio, profiles, and websites, list most the data the National Personnel Records Center needs to find a veteran's record.

What were the results of a record search for Donice Armstrong (Air Force Amy)? The letter, posted on "This Aint Hell," showed that the National Personal Records Center wasn't able to find her record.

Some posters tried to bring up the point that her name could've been spelt wrong, or that Donice Armstrong wasn't her real name. In either case, her stories, and her attempts to counter findings that she didn't serve, fail the first hand experience test.

This Ain't Hell's blog entry on her is titled, "Donice Armstrong; Air Force Amy the Hooker Phony Airman."

Air Force Amy, aka Donice Armstrong, continues to Mislead with her phony veteran Stories:

"All truth be known, I'm actually a Disabled Veteran. I took a pretty severe knee injury (torn ligaments) during an Anti-Terrorist Operation. My previous occupation to the military is listed as "Featured Topless Entertainer" and since I can no longer perform my act on stage since the injury, I am disabled in the eyes of the military." -- Donice Armstrong (Air Force Amy)

This is a new claim from Air Force Amy, made on the heels of a series of blog posts calling her claims into question.

Air Force Amy's claimed Air Force MOS was security, something equivalent to an MP. If her claims were true, she would've been on post handing out tickets, guarding the gates, or doing other routine/administrative base security duties.

The military has other units that get tagged to carry out anti-terrorist operations.

Second, what a veteran specifically did before the military isn't always relevant for disability purposes. In this case, the fact that she was a "featured topless entertainer," prior to her claimed service wasn't going to factor into any disability decision. One of the factors that the VA would look at is the affect of the service related disability on specific types of employment.

Now, the military would've given her a disability rating had her knee injury, from military service, prevented her from performing her military duties... or from performing any other duties the military needed her to be able to do. The VA looks at a set of laws and rules, as well as the veteran's ability to do most occupations with that disability, when examining what rating and compensation a veteran gets.

In her prior claims, she served her full military contractual terms. She would've repeatedly mentioned that knee injury in her records. Then, she would've mentioned her knee injury during her ETS (out processing) physical.

She would've taken copies of her medical record to the VA, and filed a claim there after her ETS. If the VA determined that it was service connected... or a pre-existing condition that military service made worse, then they would've made a disability determination.

The VA bases this determination on what they see as her disability, applicable laws/regulations/rules, and her disability's impact on her future employability. If the VA labeled her as at least 10% "disabled," she would've received a monthly paycheck. She'd still receive it if they determine, after a re-examination, that she still had that disability. It'd be called "compensation" if the VA made that determination or a "medical retirement" check had she been medically retired from the Air Force.

If the military retired her because of that disability, then she could claim being medically retired. If the VA gave her a disability percentage, she'd get the "disabled veteran" Label.

Harold, one of her supporters, tries to jump in and prop her phony veteran claims up. Unfortunately for Harold, he discredits Air Force Amy's claims of his own military experience.

"I have seen a picture of Amy overseas in the field in her fatigues, sitting in a jeep, wearing a leg cast, and carrying a crutch shortly after she was injured in the line of duty." -- Harold

If she were wearing a leg cast, with a crutch, and in a jeep, this would have to be for a "photo op." Why? Here's the reality. If you got injured during a combat mission, to the point of needing a cast and a crutch, you would've been MEDEVAC or CASEVAC out of the AO. You would not be returned to the AO in that condition. There's a good chance that you'd be flown outside of the theater.

They teach many useful combat first aid tricks in the combat lifesaver's course. They don't teach you how to put leg casts on someone in the middle of a fire fight, or after one. Traditional crutches, and casting material, aren't part of the CLS kits/bags that are in the combat vehicles.

The best that we'd be able to do is to apply a field expedient splint to the broken leg, either on location, or at the casualty collection center...

"She has fired at the enemy who were firing at her. Let's just say that several had a very bad day." -- Harold

She has claimed service from '85 to '89, or '86 to '90. Grenada was over, and Desert Shield hadn't begun yet as of her latest implied ETS date. The Air Force MOS that she claims she had, in simple terms, was "Base Security." From 1985 to 1990, the chances of her "being in the field engaging the enemy in a firefight" would've been minimal to none.

She can't claim war-time-injuries because none of her claimed dates of service qualifies for wartime service. She wouldn't have made any combat deployments during that time.

I've asked some Airmen, back in 2012, who held the MOS that Air Force Amy claimed she had, what runway "defense" involved. This is how one put it:

"...sitting in a cruiser, right next to the runway, drinking your latte..."

Not exactly the super secret squirrel training mission caliber that Air Force Amy made it out to be.

"Make and keep an appointment with Miss Air Force Amy to help repay our country's debt to our veterans." -- Harold

There may be courtesans who have served in the past. Air Force Amy doesn't appear to be one of them. You should be advertising based on her track record in the industry, not on the backs of real veterans.

"Oh, yessiree buddy, if anyone can get them out of me, it is "The Colonel", Harold that is. (Whom I must say is quite modest in his own military achievements) - Checkpoint Charlie - are you serious? Now that is action! Full on!" -- Donice Armstrong (Air Force Amy)

Checkpoint Charlie was one of the crossing points between East and West Germany. The checkpoints were named after the military alphabet. This was checkpoint "C," or "Charlie" in military alphabet phonetics. During the Berlin crises, of 1961, American and Soviet tanks faced each other at that checkpoint. It ended peacefully.

Both, the evidence, as well as Donice Armstrong's (Air Force Amy) claims show that Air Force Amy didn't serve in the military.