Why should I apologize, he was the one thinking he was better and should be treated better and be given more freedoms....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Printable View
Why should I apologize, he was the one thinking he was better and should be treated better and be given more freedoms....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
I don't recall the argument. Don't you think it's a little presumptuous of yourself to sit there and take credit for running off a forum member? You sound just a little too high on yourself, please tell me you’re not touching yourself… :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Clinton had a policy that kept my American "ground troops" from ending up dead.
Bush has a bottomless pit for a policy (that equates to huge sums of money and American productivity). Therefore let Bush logic prevail. His success is our distraction!!!
Like I ever stopQuote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Yeah, he bombed a country three times in less then 8 years, and never once planted a boot. Sure, it saved American lives...but at what cost? Credit for being a terrible wartime president?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
I think the current conflicts are going remarkably well...the lives lost pale in comparison to any other conflict of this nature in the history of war fighting...
So what's your point Steve?
The point is that it was the great Clinton military that allowed for so few deaths. :thumbs:
You mean the lack of use...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
What was that one with the Dictator Milosevic (I forget the countries involved, the names changed every week)? We wasted time and effort, and sat on our hands through most of it...what about Somalia? We accomplished nothing there before pulling out...what a waste!
Clinton's "policy" of having no balls to commit or follow through with anything saved nothing, not even face!
WTF are you talking about???? Milosevec was taken down and put on trial
This same military was trained in these places to take out Afghanistan, remember what the Brits and the Russians couldn't do.
The NATO forces were separating all over the place, Clinton couldn't get the US a strong command and control, and every coalition force wanted to get out of the clusterphuck. When Milosevic surrendered it was a complete surprise to everybody. We still had to go in and disarm forces from like 3 or 4 different sides but it wasn't very difficult in the end. However it wasn't well planned out at all, we simply got lucky!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
As you well informed patroits have established, scenarios exist everwhere for conflict around the globe. That is not a reason to established our presence with fighting ground troops. We have a duty to protect what we have not to try to dilute it somewhere elseQuote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
You don't think that diluting threats elsewhere protects what we have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
Here's another "coincidence"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/06/po...06anthrax.html
An upstate New York home and a Jersey Shore cottage owned by a doctor and self-described bioterrorism expert were searched yesterday by federal agents investigating the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks, but there was no apparent breakthrough in the long-running case.
We haven't heard anything about the Anhrax attacks in over a year. So the Feds just "happen" to search some homes so criticism of the Bush phony warnings on terrorism are forced off the news.
So what would you have the Feds do, sit on their a$$es and do nothing? Maybe these raids have something with a scathing report being released criticizing the Feds for doing just that. As for Sodom, I mean Saddam, that guy was a time bomb waiting to go off. France, Russia, Germany, the free press and others had been underming and eroding the support of the British and US' efforts ever since the end of the first Gulf War. Saddam, whether he actually possessed WMD's at the time of the recent invasion or not, threatened the world's oil supply. Stop for a minute and try to comprehend just what that really means. It goes way beyond just the privilege of driving SUV's on US highways. The world is dependent now on oil for its very survival. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer or organic subsistence farmer every aspect of your life depends on the flow of oil, like it or not. We have a right to survival and if we can help the rest of the world in the process then that's just wonderful. So we got a few hotheads in the Middle East riled up, considering the alternative its a small price to pay. The only thing to criticize both Clinton and Bush concerning Iraq is lacking a cohesive plan for running Iraq once Saddam was out of the way. As for the long-range missiles, and to that I think you are referring to the ABM shield, that should go a long way to countering the threat of North Korea. Unlike Iraq, we or anybody else in the West can't invade North Korea because of threat from China and the threat of harm to South Korea so our options are really limited. The bugs have not been entirely worked out of the ABM program but they are being worked out and I WILL feel alot better once its been fully implemented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Rezin
What are your talking about Meatwad? They have been pounding Grandma
Barbara's sandbox now for the socalled Weapons of Mass destruction. They can
not find them!!! Saddam Husssein did not attack us. Hussein was at the right--far right place at the right time We are diluting our strength with these fist fights. We need to spend our time and money on energy independence
Define attack. No he did not declare war on us. He doesnt have the balls, nor is he that stupid to do so. No he did not invade the US or US territories. That would invoke full retaliation from NATO. But he did shoot at our planes that were flying over the no fly zone established by the UN. That is attacking us. And so in our need to spend our time an money on energy independence, we are just to ignor everything else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve