Bill Clinton says.......

[Amazon 7]

Quote

That would be the Young Republicans that have MORE veterans in Congress than the Democrats, yes?

How many combat vets are there when you quote your much vaunted numbers....skippy.. you never answered that question..... Service in champagne squadrons does not quite equate crawling thru the swamps or slogging thru the sand in the sandbox.


And we are talking about the current crop of CHICKENHAWKS....you know.. the ones who are UBER PATRIOTIC... CRAZY BRAVE..with other people blood... from behind their keyboards.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Your argument is species.

that was a neat movie

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[KelliJ 0]

No, we are not the world police.
But we are the biggest kid on the block. To stand by and do nothing to protect those who can't protect themselves is no less evil than harming them ourselves. Bush and Clinton included.

[happythoughts 0]

There is action, inaction, and Clinton.

His goal was to help stabilize Somalia by providing troops.

His action was to leave troops unsupported by not providing tank support. Then, he withdrew.
His poor planning left OBL with a victory and a media boost for AQ. Somalia went tailspinning into a chaotic civil war.

In December 2007, The Elman Peace and Human Rights Organisation said it had verified 5,930 deaths, 7,980 people wounded, and 717,784 displaced from homes in Mogadishu alone during the year 2007.

700K out of a city of 2M.

That is Clintons problem. Very little action. Poor implementation of the action.
The rest of the world is left with the cleanup.

How many deaths have gone on and on due to Clinton putting his tail between his legs ? In Somalia alone ?

[billvon 2,991]

>To stand by and do nothing to protect those who can't protect themselves
>is no less evil than harming them ourselves. Bush and Clinton included.

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

--John Quincy Adams, 1821

Eerily prescient, that guy.

[warpedskydiver 0]

He was right in so many ways, go figure that his best friend in the whole world was TJ.

[jcd11235 0]

And would you care to offer your opinion of the dismal failure that is the Iraq war? I think it would be very difficult to consider it anything but a very poor implementation of action.

No one is arguing that Clinton was a great president. IMO, the only reason he is even considered a good president is because of how bad the presidents that preceded and succeeded him have been.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hmmmm...interesting manner of debate. One side is big, so it MUST be bigger than the other.
Since it was you who made the claim it is up to you to show the data, not me.
Do you always make claims without having any idea what the facts are?

You would do better to question the figure of 1.25M. Once you accept that value as correct, there's no doubt that he loses to Clinton.

The only substantitive (5 figures or greater) loss of foreign lives you can try to attribute to Clinton is the one that Marg raises - the Iraqi deaths during the sanction phase. I personally put the blame for much of that on Hussein, and I put the blame for much of the current deaths on Iraqis, not Bush.

Clinton sent troops to Bosnia. Not so popular decision here. Like the rest of the world, did not involve in Rwanda. Didn't do anything to China but make the frequent threat about trade status. Very likely the Chinese killed a large number of people in the time.

But it's silly trying to count how many lives the US could have saved. It's not too different from saving that banning guns would save all the lives lost. It wouldn't. It's a lot easier to count Americans killed.

[airdvr 210]

Iraq War
US military deaths - 3888
US military casualties - 28451
Non-US coalition casualties - 306

Iraqis - 1,130,689

Afghan war
US military deaths - 469
Non-US coalition deaths - 274


4 years =1460 days
1,130,689 / 1460 = 775 killed per day

That ain't happening.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[KelliJ 0]

The founders of our country would be surprised at how different things are today than back in 1776. Not only technologically, but also politically and socially.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Over-react? How about just react.
They tried to blow up the WTC in 93. He did nothing. They came back and succeeded.

To be honest you should mention that Bush II also didn't do anything about OBL. Even when he was given a pretty clear security briefing about OBL.

He didn't even do anything about him after 9/11. Six years later he is still alive and Bush doesn't even think he is important anymore.

So, under Clinton there was an attempt and he did nothing.
Under Bush II thousands died and he did nothing (Other than using it as an excuse to invade a completely different non-related country)

I know which scenario I prefer.....

Quote

After the following incidents, what reaction do you remember ? He got on tv and promised to do something.

1993 WTC bombing. 6 dead.

1995 Saudi Arabia, 5 US military dead.

1996 Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, 19 dead
and injured 200 US military personnel.

1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa.
224 killed and injured thousands.

2000 USS Cole. killed 17 and injured 39 US sailors.

9/11 3 thousand dead

What did Bush do? He sent minimal manpower into Afghanistan. When more was needed to actually capture OBL, they weren't available because Bush II was already to busy preparing to invade Iraq.

You are being very dishonest if you are trying to say that Bush II was very concerned about OBL.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Of course, the response to the briefing was, "Yes, we know that. What have you been doing about it for 8 years?"

A true leader would not have asked what was done in the past. A true leader would have acted upon the information.

If you want to blame Clinton's inaction, you also have to blame Bush's inaction.

[warpedskydiver 0]

You should become a General, so you could use all the divisions of the Army to attack en mass like you think they should have.

Obviously it escapes you that there is and was a plan to use Spec Ops in a role they were designed to be used in.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You should become a General, so you could use all the divisions of the Army to attack en mass like you think they should have.

Obviously it escapes you that there is and was a plan to use Spec Ops in a role they were designed to be used in.

You don't think more could have been done to capture OBL? You don't think more man power was requested, but lots had already been pulled away to prepare for the Iraq invasion?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

You should become a General, so you could use all the divisions of the Army to attack en mass like you think they should have.

Obviously it escapes you that there is and was a plan to use Spec Ops in a role they were designed to be used in.

You don't think more could have been done to capture OBL? You don't think more man power was requested, but lots had already been pulled away to prepare for the Iraq invasion?

You think we should have invaded Pakistan where OBL has a lot of support, knowing Muscharaff's popularity was weak? What would have happened if the Pakistani people had revolted and Pakistan had spiraled into a civil war? Would you think it's a good idea to have the radicals within Musharaffs Army, who are supporters of OBL, gain control of their nukes? You do realize that the fact OBL is in Pakistan is the reason we can't go after him, don't you?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You should become a General, so you could use all the divisions of the Army to attack en mass like you think they should have.

Obviously it escapes you that there is and was a plan to use Spec Ops in a role they were designed to be used in.

You don't think more could have been done to capture OBL? You don't think more man power was requested, but lots had already been pulled away to prepare for the Iraq invasion?

You think we should have invaded Pakistan where OBL has a lot of support, knowing Muscharaff's popularity was weak? What would have happened if the Pakistani people had revolted and Pakistan had spiraled into a civil war? Would you think it's a good idea to have the radicals within Musharaffs Army, who are supporters of OBL, gain control of their nukes? You do realize that the fact OBL is in Pakistan is the reason we can't go after him, don't you?

Reminds me of a story:

Drunk is on his hands and knees under a lamp-post.

Man: Are you looking for something?

Drunk: Yes, I lost my keys.

Man: Well, I can't see any keys around here.

Drunk: Well, I lost them over there in the parking lot.

Man: Why don't you look over there, then?

Drunk: It's too dark to see anything over there.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Speaking of Civil War, when was it you predicted it would happen in Iraq? Should we just be patient a little longer? Perhaps you could consult Chuteless and get help modifying the prediction.

.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

…there is and was a plan to use Spec Ops in a role they were designed to be used in.

Are special ops intended to work this slowly? If so, things have certainly changed since I was in.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[warpedskydiver 0]

In the initial assault and seizing of control?

Or now in a hap hazard typical NATO style operation, where many rules are put in place, and utilized by the enemy, to seek refuge, to evade capture, or direct combat.

Waziristan, and relinquishing any ground to taliban forces are things to consider.

Personally, after the initial defeat of the taliban, I would have used an extra force comprised of a divison of Marines, and the entire 101st ABN, not just several of it's components.

The invasion of Iraq went fine as well, too bad the Iraqi opposition, and several of our so called allies were not ready to do what was needed.(Turkey, France, Spain, etc.)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The invasion of Iraq went fine as well, too bad the Iraqi opposition, and several of our so called allies were not ready to do what was needed.(Turkey, France, Spain, etc.)

Turkey was not "ready to do what was needed" because the US was ignoring their interests. The same is true (although a bit less defensible) for France. This has long been a hallmark of US foreign policy.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Personally, after the initial defeat of the taliban, I would have used an extra force comprised of a divison of Marines, and the entire 101st ABN, not just several of it's components.

To do what, exactly?

Quote

The invasion of Iraq went fine as well, too bad the Iraqi opposition, and several of our so called allies were not ready to do what was needed.(Turkey, France, Spain, etc.)

Considering that France openly opposed our invasion/occupation of Iraq from the beginning, it hardly seems reasonable to expect them to help out. It hardly seems reasonable to expect the Iraqi Shiites to trust the US after they trusted GHW Bush to help them rise up against Saddam in '91, after Desert Storm. Is it reasonable to expect Turkey to help the Iraqi Kurds?

We failed in Iraq because of the poor planning by the WH administration.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Speaking of Civil War, when was it you predicted it would happen in Iraq? Should we just be patient a little longer? Perhaps you could consult Chuteless and get help modifying the prediction.

.

"The conflict in Iraq is not a civil war, it is an armed insurgency" - the White House Press Office

Amazing what you can do with a little semantic chicanery.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Speaking of Civil War, when was it you predicted it would happen in Iraq? Should we just be patient a little longer? Perhaps you could consult Chuteless and get help modifying the prediction.

.

"The conflict in Iraq is not a civil war, it is an armed insurgency" - the White House Press Office

Amazing what you can do with a little semantic chicanery.

Cheap diversion.

I believe we are talking about what "you" and others said. How's that Civil War you predicted going? Who won?

.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Speaking of Civil War, when was it you predicted it would happen in Iraq? Should we just be patient a little longer? Perhaps you could consult Chuteless and get help modifying the prediction.

.

"The conflict in Iraq is not a civil war, it is an armed insurgency" - the White House Press Office

Amazing what you can do with a little semantic chicanery.

Cheap diversion.

I believe we are talking about what "you" and others said. How's that Civil War you predicted going? Who won?

.

Why is the US still there with its "surge"? Has Iraq been under attack from any nation except the USA? If there's no war there, why aren't the troops coming home?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>You think we should have invaded Pakistan . . . .

It is especially funny to hear war supporters cry "that sort of invasion would be such a bad idea! It would cost a lot! It would destabilize the region! It would cost us allies! It might lead them into a (gulp) CIVIL WAR!"

Pot, meet kettle. How does it feel to become that which you once ridiculed?