Topic: Albert Lea National Guard Deployment
started by: Wareagle11B
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 05 2004,7:18 am
[b]Well I see that this forum is open to many topics of discussion so I will start my own topic. I am interested in hearing what you readers have to say concerning the deployment of the Albert Lea National Guard Unit to Afghanistan. I myself believe that this is a worthy deployment even though I do not necessarily agree with everything my President has been doing concerning that country as well as Iraq. What Pres. Bush has done was necessary and because our previous Pres. didn't have the balls to get it done right the first time we are now living in the Post 9/11 world. If the previous Pres. had gotten it done right instead of worying about his next female intern then perhaps we would not have had the attacks of 9/11 that we did. Old Blow Job Bill really screwed the USA on that one.
Posted by LisaMarie on Mar. 05 2004,8:19 am
I hate to break the news to you, but it was the Bush administration that dropped the ball on this one. The sh!t hit the fan after Bush was already in office.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 05 2004,11:25 am
| Quote |
| What Pres. Bush has done was necessary |
Afghanistan and Osama would be considered necessary, Iraq was nothing but Bush family revenge (and a big cash kick to Halliburton)
| Quote |
| because our previous Pres. didn't have the balls to get it done right the first time we are now living in the Post 9/11 world. |
Excuse me, but you are way off on this as well. First off, Clinton was too busy defending himself in court from the right-wing assault about his sex life to get much of anything else done. Secondly, as LisaMarie stated, 9/11 happened on shrubs watch, not Clintons. Lastly, Iraq and the Dept. of Homeland Security have done NOTHING to make this country any safer than it was on 9/10/2001. Where is Osama? Where are the WMD that shrub told us were in Iraq that made invasion a priority? Since most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian (and financed by Saudi as well) why have we done nothing there?
| Quote |
| If the previous Pres. had gotten it done right instead of worying about his next female intern then perhaps we would not have had the attacks of 9/11 that we did. Old Blow Job Bill really screwed the USA on that one. |
Can you tell me what in your mind you think Clinton could have done to have “gotten it done right”? If anybody screwed the pooch on this one, it was ‘Old short-bus bush’ because all the intelligence was there, and came in after shrub illegitimately became president. Some who feel the need to wear the tin-foil hats suggest that the shrub knew and let it happen anyway for a variety of reasons, like to have an excuse to invade Iraq, strip civil liberties, and to pay back the campaign contributors with oil and defense contracts for a start.
You want someone to blame for 9/11? Then look no further than the guy using footage of the 9/11 tragedy on his political ads for reelection. That bastard should be shot for this alone!
All that aside, I hope you and the rest of the troops come home safe and in one piece, and if your lucky then maybe ol' shrub will come back over to serve thanksgiving turkey to you all again this year.
Wow, 200 posts and I'm still complaining about the same things that I did in post #1!
Posted by minnow fan on Mar. 05 2004,12:05 pm
| Quote (cpu_slave @ Mar. 05 2004,11:25:am) |
| First off, Clinton was too busy defending himself in court from the right-wing assault about his sex life to get much of anything else done. Wow, 200 posts and I'm still complaining about the same things that I did in post #1! |
Maybe Slick Willy should of thought about that before he let that fat pig slob all over his knob is the oval office. What's next, are you going to tell me it's not his fault he got a blow job in the oval office? You are such a bleeding heart liberal cpu, it actually quite comical.
And
Wow, 200 posts and you still show your lack of intelligence.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 05 2004,12:38 pm
| Quote |
| Maybe Slick Willy should of thought about that before he let that fat pig slob all over his knob is the oval office. What's next, are you going to tell me it's not his fault he got a blow job in the oval office? |
And who the hell made their sex life any of your damn business in the first place? This should have been between Bill, Monica, and Hillary not Ken Star and the entire nation. How on earth did this blow job effect you or how Bill was doing his job?
| Quote |
| You are such a bleeding heart liberal cpu, it actually quite comical. |
OOOOO, back to the name calling again are we? I guess that makes you a dog-felching, flaming assbucket, and that is as comical as it is sad. I see you have made 72 posts to date and not one of them with anything intelligent, is it because you don’t have enough going on upstairs or is the reason simply because you don’t have anything going on downstairs and that’s why you’re so jealous of Clinton getting a hummer? I’m betting it’s both...
Posted by minnow fan on Mar. 05 2004,1:41 pm
| Quote (cpu_slave @ Mar. 05 2004,11:25:am) |
| shrub ‘Old short-bus bush’ shrub shrub That bastard shrub |
Yes, you hate to see name calling don't you cpu?
I thought you were the guy who hated hypocrites? Doesn't it figure, the guy who says he hates hypocrites the most is the biggest hypocrite of all?
If my name called offended you, please accept my apology, I keep forgetting how sensitive you socialists are.
As much as you would enjoy me discussing my sex life, I have some dignity and won't do so in a public forum such as this. Unlike a certain president who demonstrated his lack of dignity to the world by engaging in adulterous sex acts in a historical place of importance and then proceeded to lie under oath to the world about it.
<With finger sternly pointing at camera>
"I did not have, sexual relations, with that woman, Mrs Lewinsky"
Posted by The Advocate on Mar. 05 2004,1:50 pm
All I can say on the subject of Bill and Hillary is this. Hillary is the biggest hypocrite ever!!! I get almost nauseated when I hear womans group defending this very weak woman. Bill Clinton has disrepected her in everyway possible. She has taken this humiliation and continues to take it. If she was any kind of role model and a strong female figure she would have very publicly packed her bags and moved on, yes and while he was President. I cannot seem to forget how she belittled Tammy Wynett and her song "Stand By Your Man", and who is Hillary kidding. At least Tammy got out of bad situations and did not have an entire group of woman making rationalizations for her weaknesses.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 05 2004,2:29 pm
Who said Hilary was a woman? 
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 05 2004,2:31 pm
Stupid remarks from Cpu_slave:| Quote |
| First off, Clinton was too busy defending himself in court from the right-wing assault about his sex life to get much of anything else done. Secondly, as LisaMarie stated, 9/11 happened on shrubs watch, not Clintons. Lastly, Iraq and the Dept. of Homeland Security have done NOTHING to make this country any safer than it was on 9/10/2001. Where is Osama? And who the hell made their sex life any of your damn business in the first place? This should have been between Bill, Monica, and Hillary not Ken Star and the entire nation. How on earth did this blow job effect you or how Bill was doing his job? I guess that makes you a dog-felching, flaming assbucket, and that is as comical as it is sad.I see you have made 72 posts to date and not one of them with anything intelligent, is it because you don’t have enough going on upstairs or is the reason simply because you don’t have anything going on downstairs and that’s why you’re so jealous of Clinton getting a hummer? I’m betting it’s both... Can you tell me what in your mind you think Clinton could have done to have “gotten it done right”? |
Billy Bob Clinton stated, "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman."
First of all, Cpu_slave is an idiot. Second of all, Clinton is an idiot. Cpu you ask where is Osama? Why don't you ask Clinton, since Clinton once had Osama in his sights but let him go. Clinton made public that he knew of WMDs in Iraq but did nothing about it. Why did Clinton do nothing in office, because he was too busy with Monica. Clinton was busy fighting in court because of his own wrong doing! Don't try to blame this one on anyone but Billy Bob Clinton.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 05 2004,2:37 pm
[quote=cpu_slave,Mar. 05 2004,11:25:am][/quote]| Quote |
| Clinton was too busy defending himself in court from the right-wing assult about his sex life to get much of anything else done. |
So you think Clinton did a great job as President, but if he did a bad job on some things, it was because the conservatives were trying to expose him for perjury.
I have to laugh when I hear someone say, "well, he cheated on his wife, he lied under oath, and lied constantly other times also, but besides that he was a good guy."
| Quote |
| after shrub illegitimately became president |
If you have a problem with the American system of electing a president, I suggest you call your Congressmen. Gore's a sore loser, and so are many of his supporters who to this day say things like this.
Try to guess who said this.
| Quote |
| If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. |
Any ideas of what famous person used such strong language condemning Saddam? It was Bill Clinton.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 05 2004,2:54 pm
Back to the orginal thread| Quote |
| I myself believe that this is a worthy deployment |
Bush bashers ask "Where is Bin Laden"? They asked the same questions about Saddam--until he was dragged out of his hole. Afghanistan is infinitely more difficult terrain to maneuver a mechanized army in--as the Russians found out.
This is more campaign rhetoric than it is national policy. Critics ask "Where is Bin Laden?"--then oppose deploying troops to actually pursue him.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 05 2004,4:29 pm
| Quote |
| Doesn't it figure, the guy who says he hates hypocrites the most is the biggest hypocrite of all? |
Wow, once again I see you are pulling all this out of your ass. Care to point out exactly where I said I hate name calling? If you need attention, call your mommy. Otherwise, formulate a coherent question and join the conversation like grown-up. You don't want to bicker with me. I will embarrass you, and I couldn't care less what you have to say about it. If you insist on trying to provoke me, you'll get what you deserve. Everybody does.
Like these special-ed rejects:
| Quote |
| First of all, Cpu_slave is an idiot |
Coming from someone who runs from a debate rather than defend his own position, care to prove your claim that I am an idiot?
| Quote |
| Second of all, Clinton is an idiot |
The country (and my investments) were sure sitting better when this idiot was in the office.
| Quote |
| Cpu you ask where is Osama? Why don't you ask Clinton, since Clinton once had Osama in his sights but let him go. |
Was this after he masterminded 9/11?
| Quote |
| Clinton made public that he knew of WMDs in Iraq but did nothing about it. |
Plenty of air strikes in Iraq to be considered ‘nothing’. I remember something about bombing an aspirin factory and everyone getting their panties in a twist over it…
| Quote |
| Clinton was busy fighting in court because of his own wrong doing! Don't try to blame this one on anyone but Billy Bob Clinton. |
Like I asked earlier, what f’ing business is it of yours what went on between two consenting adults? Was it poor judgment? Yes, and the lie about a blow job suddenly ballooned into an impeachable offense because he lied about what many believe was nobody’s business to begin with. Let’s see, impeachment over a lie, so where in the he!l is the trial over shrubs lies to the American public about WMD that sent this country to war in Iraq before we even had Afghanistan and Osama dealt with?
| Quote |
| So you think Clinton did a great job as President, but if he did a bad job on some things, it was because the conservatives were trying to expose him for perjury. I have to laugh when I hear someone say, "well, he cheated on his wife, he lied under oath, and lied constantly other times also, but besides that he was a good guy." |
Again, bottom line the economy was riding high and the world did not hate us (as much), and not a single war under 8 years of Clinton. During that time, there was always some personal legal issue he was dealing with, be it whitewater, travelgate, hillaries bs investments, and of course the most famous blow job in history. I will cut him some slack, he did not have as much time to focus on the country as he had to focus on his own ass, but as far as the job of president he did what I expected a president to do, nothing more. I guess keeping him busy with his own problems kept him out of my business.
| Quote |
| If you have a problem with the American system of electing a president, I suggest you call your Congressmen. |
To do what exactly? That's right, nothing. There have been many reports about what I would call serious allegations on how the entire Florida voting went down. Not a hot news item, but reports on how many people who voted had their votes nullified because a ‘mistake’ was made where these people were thought to be felons. This happened on a scale grand enough that in many peoples minds basically decided the presidency. Unfortunately, it’s all coming out after the fact, so what would it really change? Again, nothing.
| Quote | ||
| Try to guess who said this. Quote
Any ideas of what famous person used such strong language condemning Saddam? It was Bill Clinton. |
After reading it again and again, I still fail to see where either the words ‘invasion’ and ‘war’ are mentioned. To any one paying attention, Iraq was only a threat to itself. After years of inspections, without any actual proof of WMD the current administration felt the need to go war, and I have a problem with it.
| Quote |
| it DID happen under the Clinton Administration. This had nothing to do with Clinton's legal problems--it WAS a conscious decision to downsize the military and cut back the CIA. |
Hate to break this to you jim, but the current administration also closed bases and continued downsizing the military, until 9/11 that is. Besides, downsizing of the military happened simultaneously with bringing the technology out of the Vietnam era into the 21st century. Which would you rather have, numbers or the technology because the congress was not going to spend for both!
| Quote |
| Bush bashers ask "Where is Bin Laden"? They asked the same questions about Saddam--until he was dragged out of his hole. |
Again, why the rush into Iraq when Osama had yet to even be captured? All this proves is that Saddam was in no way the threat he was made out to be, while Osama has proven that he is. The invasion into Iraq has only increased membership into terrorist organizations, something that unfortunately we will have to deal with at some point.
| Quote |
| This is more campaign rhetoric than it is national policy. Critics ask "Where is Bin Laden?"--then oppose deploying troops to actually pursue him. |
An example of rhetoric right here. If I remember correctly, it was actually the current administration who said our troops are stretched too thin and that is why we are seeing 18 month or more tours for some of the soldiers. Basically, if we did not go into Iraq in the first place we would have had plenty of troops in Afghanistan to have found Osama by now and would have been working on restoring the peace there, rather than trying to be an occupying force in 2 different countries simultaneously.
WTF is this ‘cornhole cpu_slave’ day?
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 05 2004,5:43 pm
| Quote |
| after shrub illegitimately became president |
Cpu_slave, if Billy Bob Gore could have won his own state he would of won the election! Maybe the people within his state were the only ones that really knew what a dumb a$$ he really was other than of course the fact that the Republicans already knew.
| Quote |
| Was it poor judgment? Yes, and the lie about a blow job suddenly ballooned into an impeachable offense because he lied about what many believe was nobody’s business to begin with. |
Cpu_slave, "many believe" ? Who the hell are you talking about? Have you been smoking pot with Minnow again? I guess your right, lieing to the public should have no bearing on the President's ability to run the country! What? Are you kidding or are you really just having a melt down?
I think, no let me change that to I know you have lost it!
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 05 2004,5:59 pm
| Quote |
| WTF is this ‘cornhole cpu_slave’ day? |
Nah, just "giving as good as receiving"--and you are a formidable adversary.| Quote |
| Basically, if we did not go into Iraq in the first place we would have had plenty of troops in Afghanistan to have found Osama by now and would have been working on restoring the peace there, rather than trying to be an occupying force in 2 different countries simultaneously. |
"I see that you have pressed number 1. If this is correct, press the # key. Please enter the estimated number of Americans killed, followed by the # key. If you are calling to complain about the loss of the Taliban, press 1 NOW. If you are calling to complain about losing sleep to American patrols, Predator UAVs, or Stealth Bombers, or the fact that Bush is illegally occupying the White House, press 2 NOW. If you would like to trade stories of your horrible living conditions with Saddam Hussein, press 3 NOW. If you want the Infidels out of the Middle East--or Bush out of the White House, press 4 NOW, or wait on the line to talk to John Kerry. If you would like to listen to a message from President Bush--delivered by a U.S. Armed Forces emissary, please press 5 NOW--stay on the line, and hold your cell phone out the entrance to your cave. The estimated wait time for Mr. Bush's message to be delivered to you is 90 seconds."
GOODBYE!!!
All in good fun, CPU_slave!
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 05 2004,7:45 pm
| Quote |
| Again, bottom line the economy was riding high and the world did not hate us (as much) |
Who cares what the world thinks, in most countrys their press is a joke, they only report propaganda to enrage their citizens. If we're going to start conducting international polls to decide policy based on people informed only by a biased anti-american media, we'd really be in trouble.
| Quote |
| and not a single war under 8 years of Clinton |
Of course not, if we had been attacked Clinton would have surrendered, or paid them off like he did with North Korea.
| Quote |
| During that time, there was always some personal legal issue he was dealing with, be it whitewater, travelgate, hillaries bs investments |
Doesn't this tell you something about the guy?
| Quote |
| There have been many reports about what I would call serious allegations on how the entire Florida voting went down. |
When I said to call you Congressman, I meant if you were in favor of changing the electoral college system. As for the Florida ballots, I've never heard of what you mentioned (people thought to be felons). What I do know is that many of them screwed up because they couldn't understand the complicated nature of a butterfly ballot! Then the media starts repeating the democrats cry that the butterfly ballot was a conspiracy by the republicans to trick uneducated voters. If they can't figure out how to use a ballot, after someone clearly explains how to use it, it might be better for them not to vote to begin with.
| Quote |
| WTF is this 'cornhole cpu_slave' day? |
Although I disagree with you about Bush, from many of your posts its obvious your informed on the issues, so I won't insult you like others have. Just trying to give another perspective as I see it.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 05 2004,10:46 pm
Let's see if I understand this correctly. Some misguided person who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about is saying that President Bush is responsible for what happened on September 11th 2001. Uh I am sorry to point you off your Clinton loving track but it happened on PRESIDENT Bush's watch because of former President Clinton's inability to do what was right and send the US Military out to hunt Bin Laden down and kill him. Last I checked cruise missiles cannot hit someone hiding deep inside a cave but a Snipers bullet or a couple of Improvised Explosive Devices sure as hell could have nailed him. Blow Job Bill failed to use the military because he had no clue how to use it properly. That is because Blow Job Bill had absolutely no experience in the proper use of the Armed Forces of the USA nor had he ever spent time in the military. Instead of defending this country he was protesting another war.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 05 2004,10:59 pm
CPU slave there is nothing wrong with sex between 2 consenting adults unless 1 of those 2 happens to be the President of this country. Furthermore Clinton had many many warnings where Osama Bin Laden was concerned long before 9/11 ever happened. The inability of Blow Job Bill to get the job done is not due only to his distractions in the legal system of this country but due as well to his inability to understand the proper use of our Armed Forces. Check your facts about the former administrations actions and I believe you will find that much of what you are saying is as misguided as the statement about President Bush illegitimately becoming President. Bill Clinton did not win the majority of the popular vote either but yet due to the Electoral college system he became President. The system needs to be changed so that WE can decide our President and not some outdated system. It is a known fact that when a President first takes office much of what happens in the first 6-9 months of his term is usually the aftermath of the previous administrations policies and what not. What happened on 9/11 can in no way be blamed on our current President because the intelligence failures can be traced back in a large part to former President Clintons Administration.
Posted by minnow fan on Mar. 06 2004,12:40 am
Amazing irsheyes.We agree.
Posted by rosebudinal on Mar. 06 2004,6:13 pm
And wow, minnow fan and I agree, good Consise points, Jim and Irish eyes, but, why waste your breathe they will never " get it". No comprende. They obviously are still under the illusion that the after effects of policies, legislation and acts do not happen overnite and on the average take 8 years. Politics 101 lesson free of charge.....
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 06 2004,8:05 pm
| Quote |
No comprende. They obviously are still under the illusion that the after effects of policies, legislation and acts do not happen overnite and on the average take 8 years. Politics 101 lesson free of charge..... |
Oh come on you aren't going to blame this on Clinton.
The Reagan administration and Pakistani intelligence created the Taliban to try to get the world to believe that the entire Islamic world was fighting against the Soviet Union. Reagan even went so far as to compare the mudjaheddin warriors to the 'Founding Fathers'. The only difference was that these founding fathers were more than happy to get American weapons and millions of dollars and then later use those weapons to kill American soldiers.
History 101 lesson free of charge.....
It's amazes me that Americans can watch the news every night and see mudjaheddin warriors and Iraqi soldiers carrying soviet AK47's and never question what happened to all the American weapons Reagan gave them.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 06 2004,11:06 pm
| Quote (minnow fan @ Mar. 06 2004,12:40:am) |
| Amazing irsheyes. We agree. |
Yep, sometimes even your friend minnow & I agree (it scares me when that happens).
I realize that Liberal, but their were and probably still are atleast a dozen main tribes in Afganistan, many were associated with the Taliban and Al Qaida. Even after 9-11 our CIA and special forces supplied money and weapons to many of those tribes. Some of which were formerly in the Taliban, but when they realized we would win they switched sides (if you can't beat em, join em). I don't see anything wrong with this.
If we wouldn't have had the intelligence, knowledge of terrain, and manpower of many of these former terrorists, their would have been a lot more "boots on the ground" needed, and a lot more casualties for our side. When we took control of the country, we did it with only about 200 CIA paramilitary forces, and about 200 special forces. Most of the work was done by Afgans riding horseback, our guys mostly supplied money, weapons, intelligence, and targeted lazer guided bomb targets for the Air Force.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 07 2004,11:39 am
| Quote |
I realize that Liberal, but their were and probably still are atleast a dozen main tribes in Afganistan, many were associated with the Taliban and Al Qaida. Even after 9-11 our CIA and special forces supplied money and weapons to many of those tribes. |
Ok let me see if I have this straight. Reagan and his CIA henchman/vice president George Bush Sr. arms the first group in the 80's and imports muslims from all over the world to fight the soviets. And then almost 20 years later George Bush Jr. arms another group of them to fight the first ones that his old man and Reagan armed and put in power. And then you guys want me to believe that this is all the fault of Bill Clinton for getting a hummer in the oval office?
They're shooting at Americans with weapons supplied by the expansionist Reagan republicans and you want to blame the nearest democrat you can point your finger at because he lied to you about the behavior of two consenting adults. I wonder who you are going to blame 20 years from now when we are back there arming the next generation of freedom fighters.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 07 2004,11:45 am
Liberal--no political statement here, but just curious what DID happen to the M-16s? Why would they want a stamped-out, wooden-stocked piece of crap like an AK-47--unless it was BETTER than our M-16s? Is it because the Russians still supply them with 7.62 Short (unique to AK-47s) ammunition, and they can't get regular 7.62 rounds? I don't know.They KEPT the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles we sent them--it was probably a Stinger that hit the El Al airliner last year, and the DHL cargo jet in Iraq this year. It is estimated that these old Stingers work about 1/3 of the time now--but they still will be deadly for another 15-20 years.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 07 2004,12:54 pm
Both Irisheyes and Liberal make the same point--actions by any Administration can show up YEARS later. Liberal's points are historically correct--no denying that we supported and armed parts of the world--sometimes opposing factions.Equally demonstratable, though, is the effects of the Clinton (and Carter) administrations gutting the military and the CIA. Both Presidents were thought of a weak by our adversaries. Iran took American hostages--something not done by a foreign government before or since. Libya thumbed its nose at the U.S.--until Reagan bombed Ghadaffi's palace. Clinton kept threatening to send in the U.N. to Iraq (THAT would strike fear!), choosing to lob in a few cruise missiles when they fired on our aircraft. Saddam COUNTED (incorrectly, it turns out) on this weak posturing of the U.S.--figuring the usual U.N. squabbling and inability to act would protect him.
Gutting the CIA had long-term effects as well. The existence and organization of OBL, the "ear to the ground" on impending events, the contacts on the ground when it came time to pursue him, lack of contacts with other intelligence operations (might have turned up better "intelligence" on existence of WMD than we had). There's plenty of blame to go around.
The point is--actions taken by an administration have repercussions decades down the road--and have nothing to do with Clinton's prevarications.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 08 2004,1:11 pm
Looks like this is going to get pretty long...| Quote |
| Cpu_slave, if… |
If is a pretty big word cwolff. If this or if that, yea we all know about the power of the word if. We could have alot of fun with the word if, perhaps we can get into that later.
| Quote |
| Cpu_slave, "many believe" ? Who the hell are you talking about? Have you been smoking pot with Minnow again? |
What are you having a problem comprehending? Let me simplify this for you, many people believe that Clintons sex life was nobodies business. Basically, he lied about something that should not have been an issue to begin with. Let me ask you this, how did his blow job affect your life in any way? Then can you also go on to explain how his lying about said blowjob affected your life?
| Quote |
| I guess your right, lieing to the public should have no bearing on the President's ability to run the country! What? Are you kidding or are you really just having a melt down? |
Let us put this into perspective, one president lied about a blowjob, another lied about WMD in Iraq and Uranium from Africa. Now which president was impeached and which one was not? Which lie directly affected my life and which was nothing more than a distraction?
Now jim, in the time between the fall of the Soviet Union to just after 9/11 this country has been slowly cutting back on both the military and covert agents. This happened on Reagan’s watch as well as Bush Seniors, Clintons, and to a lesser extent the shrubs since he only had ¾ of a year of his presidency under his belt before 9/11, but as stated before was looking to close military bases and cut funding as well. Placing all the military downsizing on 8 years of over 13 is not looking at the entire picture but rather looking for an easy scapegoat.
| Quote |
| Who cares what the world thinks, in most countrys their press is a joke, they only report propaganda to enrage their citizens. |
Who cares what the world thinks? You actually might want to start. Besides, the same could be said about the US press as they have been too easy on this administration. Do you really think that every country controls its press to that extent?
| Quote |
| if we had been attacked |
There is that pesky word if again. Guess what? We not only were not attacked on US soil, but we also did not invade another nation in that entire time. How about if Clinton attacked Iraq and came up with no WMD, what do you think the right would be doing and saying about that now?
| Quote |
| As for the Florida ballots, I've never heard of what you mentioned (people thought to be felons). |
< HERE > is something to help get you started.
| Quote |
| but a Snipers bullet or a couple of Improvised Explosive Devices sure as hell could have nailed him. Blow Job Bill failed to use the military because he had no clue how to use it properly. |
Until shortly after 9/11, the US had a moratorium on assassinations. I guess you’re going to tell me that Clinton put it there or even better yet, that he should have ignored it and went ahead anyway. Besides, I thought the military was here to protect the US and its allies from foreign aggressors, and not to be used as a tool to make us the aggressors. I guess with an administration that wipes its ass with the constitution and the bill of rights then who really cares what they actually say anyways…
| Quote |
| Bill Clinton did not win the majority of the popular vote either but yet due to the Electoral college system he became President. |
Bullsh!t! Here is the proof-
Presidential election results. < www.uselectionatlas.org >
1992 370 to 168 electoral votes, 43.01% to 37.45% popular vote (Clinton vs. Bush Sr. – Clinton winning BOTH electoral and popular votes)
1996 379 to 159 electoral votes, 49.24% to 40.71% popular vote (Clinton vs. Dole – Clinton willing BOTH electoral and popular votes)
| Quote |
| It is a known fact that when a President first takes office much of what happens in the first 6-9 months of his term is usually the aftermath of the previous administrations policies and what not. |
Again- Bullsh!t! If I recall, Bush 2 (and presidents prior) gave a ‘first 100 days in office’ speech where he took credit for all kinds of things that he 'accomplished'. I will agree about the first few months, but nowhere close to 9. I like how you use the number 9 in this case, just long enough to somehow try and blame Clinton for 9/11...
| Quote |
What happened on 9/11 can in no way be blamed on our current President because the intelligence failures can be traced back in a large part to former President Clintons Administration. |
It was not Clintons administration in office at the time that ‘mis-read’ the intelligence, it was the shrubs. Just wait until the report on 9/11 comes out and read for yourself how the intelligence about the attack came in weeks and days prior to 9/11 and was mis-handled by the current administration. If there is any intelligence failure, it is the guy currently sitting behind the desk in the oval office.
| Quote |
| why waste your breathe they will never " get it". No comprende. They obviously are still under the illusion that the after effects of policies, legislation and acts do not happen overnite and on the average take 8 years. Politics 101 lesson free of charge..... |
I see we are back to the ‘Politics 101 lesson’ from about the year 1804. Policy does not take 8 years to see an effect, 18 to 24 months maximum! Just for fun, if everything takes 8 years as you claim then why is Bush out there saying that his tax cuts are directly responsible for the economic recovery? (BTW – the ‘economic recovery’ is an entirely different debate) Hell, even Bushes first tax cut was retroactive, making the effects felt immediately! Here are just two examples on how it does not take 8 years to feel the effects of policy. Care to provide some examples of things just taking effect now that were passed in 1996? Hell, I would settle on just about anything that Clinton passed during his term that has not been felt yet, because as you state we could see things up until 2008 that are somehow Clintons fault (just enough time to cover shrubs entire re-election term if that nightmare happens) I will agree that some of the unforeseen ‘ripple effects’ of certain policies can come to light as late as a decade or two after the fact, but to try and blame everything on the former administration? Nothing is ever shrubs fault is it? To you it's either Clintons fault or an intelligence failure, but god forbid if anything is bushes fault in your eyes, right?
You know what I think? Had Gore won in 2000 and all this went down the exact same way it has with Bush 2, the right would be screaming from the rooftops that it was ‘Gores fault’ since he was in office when it happened. I’m getting tired of all the Bush apologists…
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 08 2004,1:38 pm
They still have a lot of American weapons. Our media just isn't allowed to show footage of it, just like it's not allowed to show footage of a british soldier carrying a weapon because they're sold as peace keeepers in the U.K. and not as invaders. The media outlets don't have to follow the rules but if they don't follow them they will no longer get embedded reporters and they will get shunned at news conferences.
Do you ever wonder why you rarely see footage of the weapons seizures in Iraq? Or wonder why they call a claymore mine a "roadside explosive device" when it kills a soldier in Iraq?
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 08 2004,2:35 pm
CPU-slave--this reply is limited to only your remarks in the paragraph quoted below:| Quote |
| Now jim, in the time between the fall of the Soviet Union to just after 9/11 this country has been slowly cutting back on both the military and covert agents. This happened on Reagan’s watch as well as Bush Seniors, Clintons, and to a lesser extent the shrubs since he only had ¾ of a year of his presidency under his belt before 9/11, but as stated before was looking to close military bases and cut funding as well. Placing all the military downsizing on 8 years of over 13 is not looking at the entire picture but rather looking for an easy scapegoat. |
From the Heritage Foundation, Sept. 2000
| Quote |
| The Facts About Readiness. In the early 1990s, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the U.S. military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. Under the Clinton Administration, however, these reductions in forces escalated rapidly, with too little defense spending, while U.S. forces were deployed more often. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade. Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. The number of total active personnel in the Air Force has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreased from around 393 ships in the fleet in 1992 (from a post WW II high of 563 under Reagan--JH)to 316 today. Even the Marines have dropped 22,000 personnel. In spite of these drastic force reductions, military missions and operations tempo increased. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness. Military deployments have increased dramatically throughout the 1990s. The pace of deployments has increased 16-fold since the end of the Cold War. Between 1960 and 1991, the Army conducted 10 operations outside of normal training and alliance commitments, but between 1992 and 1998, the Army conducted 26 such operations. Similarly, the Marines conducted 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, and 62 since 1989. During the 1990s, U.S. forces of 20,000 or more troops were engaged in non-warfighting missions in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1996), and Iraq and Kuwait (1998). This dramatic increase in the use of America's armed forces has had a detrimental effect on overall combat readiness. Both people and equipment wear out faster with frequent use. Frequent deployments also take funding away from ongoing expenses such as training, fuel, and supplies. Moreover, the stress of frequent and often unexpected deployments can be detrimental to troop morale and jeopardize the armed forces' ability to retain high-quality people. |
Reagan didn't downsize the military, Bush #41 STARTED to, but the military was REALLY downsized under Clinton. In terms of personnel, the military services are down 30-40% from 1990 (even more compared with the Reagan years). The Navy has less than half the ships they had under Reagan--yet the military is being asked to do more with these fewer assets.
No wonder our adversaries consider(ed) us weak!
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 08 2004,6:51 pm
Y'know I won't deny that President Bush is in part at fault for the attacks of September 11th 2001. However if we look back into the Clinton years we see that former President Clinton's idea of dealing with the terrorist threat of Al-Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden was to lob a couple of cruise missiles into countries that supported him. The ones that were fired into Afghanistan missed completely. Want to bet that a sniper wouldn't have missed Bin Laden if he had been given the oppurtunity? Furthermore I do not deny that we supported regimes that turned out to bite the hand that fed them namely the USA. We supported Saddam for many years in his fight against Iran because at that time Iran WAS a terrorist supporting nation. Iran is now becoming aware of the fact that the kind of behavior previously allowed in Iran is not gonna fly in the face of possible retaliation from the USA. Now onto another subject I have been lax in responding to.....Mr Hanson I do agree with you in that the National Guard should not be used as it has been used these past few years. I do not want to go to Afghanistan anymore then my fellow soldiers do. I do believe it is a worthy deployment in that it will be what so many of us have trained for and would possibly never have had the chance to perform. I have been in the military for quite along time and yet this is my first actual combat deployment.I do agree that the use of the NG is not as it should be.
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 08 2004,11:14 pm
Many believe that Cpu_slave is in love with Blow Job Bill! Don't forget Bill lied about WMD's in Iraq!
If Gore would have won his own state he would have won the election.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 09 2004,9:53 am
Wareagle11B--does the 11B on your "handle" refer to Basic Combat Infantryman? I understand the Military Occupational Specialy system was renumbered since I was in.----------------------------------------------------------------
National Guard troops come under the command of the State governor--and traditionally, are used in civil disasters (including martial law when declared by the governor). Reserves are just as the name implies--reserve troops to augment the Regular Army during times of crisis. The GOOD news is that National Guard and Reserve's seem to now be outfitted with more or less the same equipment given Regular Army troops, instead of making do with "hand-me-downs". (It seems we still give THOSE to the MARINES!)
If we are going to continue to deploy as many times as we have in the past 15 years (see my post, above)--we are going to have to have more troops, and the support equipment to get them deployed. We are wearing out troops, and the associated equipment to deploy them (ships and aircraft). The choices are:
A larger standing military
Continued use of the Guard and Reserve
Ability to train and raise large numbers of men quickly (draft)
With the world in turmoil, I can't see the need DECREASING in the immediate future. Not only do we need troops, but we need the equipment to support and deploy them.
Starting in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we enjoyed a "peace dividend"--cutting back the military. Military commanders were in favor of closing obsolete bases, to use the savings for better weapon systems (a move often blocked by Legislators seeking "pork" for their districts). Look how much easier it was to close a foreign base than a domestic one. Result--we have fewer foreign bases to use in a conflict (remember the problem in Iraq, when the Turks wouldn't let us use their bases?). As a result, we have placed more emphasis on aircraft carriers as MOBILE FORWARD BASES--not needing permission of a host country to operate. The only problem--we are down to 10 carriers (from 17). Considering that 1/3 are usually in port, 1/3 are in transit, and 1 always in overhaul--that only leaves 3 carriers deployed worldwide at any one time! Another problem--we don't have enough support ships to field more carrier groups.
With aircraft, we are also dangerously behind the times. The Navy's fleet defense fighter, the F-14 Tomcat, is 30 years old, and being retired. The Vietnam-era E-6 Intruder--used for air strikes, electronic surveillance and countermeasures, and tankers, HAS been retired by the Clinton Administration. Navy pilots are fighting mad--Navy aircraft can't take off with a full load of fuel and weapons, so they have to "hit a tanker" after becoming airborne. With no E-6s (capable of refueling 6 aircraft on a load of fuel), the job goes to the Viking--capable of fueling only 2 1/2 aircraft on a load of fuel. Result--severely restricted flight operations.
The Air Force fares no better. In the Middle East, our B-2 bombers had to make 24-hour round-trip flights to the Middle East from Whitehead AFB in Missouri--because there are no hangars or support facilities in Europe for the bombers! These aircraft are subsonic, have no provision for rest areas, relief crews, or even a potty for such long flights--requiring 3-4 refuelings each way. Our air superiority fighters--the F-15 and F-16 are 25 years old.
The point is--despite all the "gee-whiz" of cruise missles, JDAMs, "smart bombs", etc., our military has been cut so far back that it is difficult to put men and equipment on station. Like it or not, we will be in for a HUGE rebuilding effort in the next decade--under ANYBODYs Administration.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 09 2004,11:21 am
| Quote |
With aircraft, we are also dangerously behind the times. The Navy's fleet defense fighter, the F-14 Tomcat, is 30 years old, and being retired. The Vietnam-era E-6 Intruder--used for air strikes, electronic surveillance and countermeasures, and tankers, HAS been retired by the Clinton Administration. Navy pilots are fighting mad--Navy aircraft can't take off with a full load of fuel and weapons, so they have to "hit a tanker" after becoming airborne. With no E-6s (capable of refueling 6 aircraft on a load of fuel), the job goes to the Viking--capable of fueling only 2 1/2 aircraft on a load of fuel. Result--severely restricted flight operations. |
What will we do with our aircraft being "dangerously behind the times" and having "severely restricted flight operations"? This could be really bad if another superpower decides to attack us. We should probably spend a lot of money on defense just to make sure we're safe. We can't be fighting all those state of the art jets all those other countries have with our 25 year old junk.
| Quote |
Like it or not, we will be in for a HUGE rebuilding effort in the next decade--under ANYBODYs Administration. |
Can't we just keep our military small and quit policing the rest of the world
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 09 2004,11:42 am
Many believe that cwolff has a hang-up about blow jobs. Tell us cwolff, are you simply jealous or just that anal? As for your statement about how I feel about Clinton, I suggest going back and reading some of my earlier posts about politicians. But as I can already see you are not only slow but also lazy so I will sum it up here quickly- All major candidates are owned by special interest and the voting public matters only around election season. (most) All politicians lie, and looking at several posts here I can plainly see that the public outrage over a lie is directly related to which side of the political spectrum one sees themselves a part of. Personally I have seen a running joke throughout this entire administration, that everything that goes wrong is somehow Clintons fault. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and follow along like a good little neo-con, but in all honesty it only shows how truly ignorant you are. As for me, I will try and lay blame where blame is due- and in the case of Iraq I will lay that blame squarely on the current administration because to this day I have seen absolutely no proof that Iraq was a threat to anyone, much less tied in any way to 9/11. Now that the WMD lie is being shown for what it really was, all you bush backers can do is point to Clinton and say things like “blow-job”, “Bill lied about WMD too!” and “the economy was that way when bush got here!” Jim, I realize the official date of the Soviet Collapse, but you and I both know that it did not happen overnight and in fact actually started the day that Gorbachev was appointed back in ‘85, especially with his early reforms. By the end of Reagan's second term the collapse was anticipated and plans were made then to start downsizing the military. Bush Sr. started implementing this plan of a 25% reduction during his presidency, and Clinton carried on the same policy of downsizing during his term as well. Although Clinton spent only half of what Reagan did on procurement, this was partly because much of the military’s antiquated weaponry had already been replaced during the Reagan buildup, so it was natural that spending decreased. You do realize that most of the military technology used in Afghanistan and Iraq was developed and implemented during Clintons watch, right? Although the Pentagon under Rumsfeld had boosted the defense budget substantially after 9/11, it had not changed the basic standards of military recruitment and retention set during the Clinton years. Some have pushed the Bush administration to increase the numbers in the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force and again last week, Secretary Rumsfeld rejected that call again, saying that the cost of adding more uniformed personnel was not necessary and too expensive. So again, here we have people laying the blame on Clinton for what? Military pay increased, technology was advanced, and all branches of the service were actually streamlined to save taxpayers money. The performance of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq tell me that the military did not go to hell under Clinton, but actually seemed to come out better then they were during the first gulf war. Like I have stated before, some people seem to be caught up on military personnel numbers, when in fact technology has made a large standing military unnecessary. Tell me, now that defense spending has increased dramatically since 9/11 what difference have you seen in the military that was not there a few years ago?
As for the Guard and Reserve, I think you pretty much covered that in saying that the Reserve is to back up the Regular Troops and the National Guard should be used here at home. The problem comes in where politicians see money, training, and equipment going into the National Guard and the thoughts of ‘seeing some return on investment’ come into play. Sorry boys and girls, you’re now going to have to start earning that Guard and Reserve pay.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 09 2004,12:18 pm
| Quote |
| though the Pentagon under Rumsfeld had boosted the defense budget substantially after 9/11, it had not changed the basic standards of military recruitment and retention set during the Clinton years. Some have pushed the Bush administration to increase the numbers in the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force and again last week, Secretary Rumsfeld rejected that call again, saying that the cost of adding more uniformed personnel was not necessary and too expensive. |
(rimshot--ba-da-boom--just kidding!)| Quote |
| Jim, I realize the official date of the Soviet Collapse, but you and I both know that it did not happen overnight and in fact actually started the day that Gorbachev was appointed back in ‘85, |
From Liberal
| Quote |
| What will we do with our aircraft being "dangerously behind the times" and having "severely restricted flight operations"? This could be really bad if another superpower decides to attack us. We should probably spend a lot of money on defense just to make sure we're safe. We can't be fighting all those state of the art jets all those other countries have with our 25 year old junk. |
Our military air wings have many missions.Air superiority. Our front-line aircraft are 25-30 years old. Parts haven't been built for the F-14 for the Navy for 10 years. The F-14 is designed to take out up to 10 targets for fleet defense--something the Super Hornet can't do. We have no good tankers, so we can only launch about half our aircraft from carriers. It takes 10 years to develop a front-line fighter--those aircraft will be 35-40 years old before the next fighters come on line. Meanwhile, the Russians are still making new fighters, and exporting them to other countries (both India and Pakistan have them). Have you ever seen the pictures of the Sukhoi SU-25s in Iraq buried in the sand? < http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp > These are front-line fighters, still current production. The Russians are selling Mig-29s and 31s--the equal or better than our F-15s.
Electronic Intelligence and Control--the KC-135 aircraft are based on the Boeing 707--a jetliner from the late 50s--no U.S. airline has operated them for years. The Navy uses the P-3 Orion--a prop-driven aircraft dating to 1956.(Maybe if we had better intelligence aircraft, the U.S. would have more reliable intelligence on WMDs?)
Ground Attack--The Navy no longer has E-6s. The A-10 Warthog was retired after the FIRST Iraq war, and brought out of mothballs because there is nothing else to do the job. Our F-15 multi-role fighter is 25 years old.
Bombing--The B-52 is 52 years old. The E-6 is gone. The B-1 fleet is too small, and based in Barksdale, Grand Forks, and Rapid City--all U.S. The B-2 fleet is also small, and also U.S. based.
Training--the T-37 is coming up on 50, the T-38 is 42.
Helicopters--The Cobra is 36 years old. The Apache is 25, the Huey pre-dates Vietnam, the Blackhawk is 25, the Chinook and Sea Knight are 42, and the Jolly Green rescue helicopter was used in Vietnam. The Russians and Chinese are WAY ahead of us on helicopters.
Think about it--how old were YOU when these aircraft were new? ONCE AGAIN--WITH AGES ON AIRCRAFT LIKE THESE, THERE'S PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND!
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 09 2004,1:32 pm
Anyone with loved ones being deployed and do not have access to a computer and internet may use my computers free of charge to stay in contact with their loved ones.www.web-room.net/cybercafe
All we ask is you bring a picture of your loved one, to be hung on our wall of heros.
Posted by Wareagle11B on Mar. 09 2004,7:13 pm
First and Foremost GeoKarjo Thank You very much for your support as I do know you personally it is very kind what you do for those of us that have to do what our government orders us to do.Second. I have been earning my Guard/Reserve pay for many years Cpu Slave and I am ready,willing, and quite able to do the job that is asked of me. Dare I ask if the same can be said of you? I have stood on the frontlines of the so called Cold War and looked across the border into communist East Germany, I have done what my country has asked of me without question. Once more I am being asked to do this and once more I shall do what is asked. I am not in anyway whining about this though my family and loved ones would rather I stay home and leave this to the new breed of soldiers rather than my old self. It is my duty and responsibility to teach these new soldiers the tricks I have learned over the course of my military career and I shall indeed do my best to bring my fellow soldiers home in the same way they left. IN ONE PIECE!!! I would recommend that whether you like what we are doing or not you at least show your support to the Guard members and the families left behind by volunteering your time to assist them if they need any help. I do not direct that last one at you specifically Cpu. I am an American Fighting Person, I serve in the forces which Guard my country and Our Way of Life. The first words of the soldiers creed and the words upon which I live by when in the uniform of my country be it NG,Reserve, or Active Military. I and those serving alongside me as well as those who have served are a proud lot of men and women and we did it with no regard to the consequence. Cpu you are quite and intelligent person as are the many of you whom I have had the chance to read in this forum. I did not realize that 1 simple question would create quite the conversation it has.
Thank you all for the responses and keep the topic flourishing while I am gone. We depart soon for our Active Training and then onward into Afghanistan for the duration. I am proud to do this and will with the lord watching over me return once more to this forum to again start a new topic for all of you to converse/argue over. Keep all of us in your prayers whether you believe in our purpose or not. Mr Hanson 11B is still Infantry but it is not the only MOS designation I hold but it is the primary. For now all the best to everyone of you. I am outta here for a long vacation in a very hot place.Wareagle11B signing off.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Mar. 09 2004,8:02 pm
Thanks for stopping by wareagle11b, May god protect you, and I salute you.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2004,12:04 pm
Wareagle 11B--will you be able to get internet access in Afghanistan?
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 10 2004,12:04 pm
Cpu_slave, I mention that you are in love with Clinton, and you revert to words such as: anal, ignorant, and good little neo-con. I do believe that your leftist liberal colors are starting to show through, and maybe you are starting to get an attitude with me. Then you make the statement:
| Quote |
| because to this day I have seen absolutely no proof that Iraq was a threat to anyone |
Evidently Cpu_slave has not yet heard about the millions of murdered Iraqs' by the dictator Sadam who was indeed a major threat to his own people.
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 10 2004,4:41 pm
| Quote |
| I do believe that your leftist liberal colors are starting to show through, and maybe you are starting to get an attitude with me. |
I guess to you anyone left of Rush and Ann are ‘leftist liberals’ right cwolff? As for the attitude, ignorant people tend to bother me so make your own conclusions from that, as you tend to do it anyhow.
| Quote |
| Evidently Cpu_slave has not yet heard about the millions of murdered Iraqs' by the dictator Sadam who was indeed a major threat to his own people |
Are we back to this old argument again? Threat to his own people and threat to other nations are two completely different subjects. If the citizens felt so threatened by Saddam, then why was there no revolution? Couldn’t these people get their own hands dirty? Oh, that’s right, they tried that once when Bush Sr. said he would help them, and that help never came. Actually, this is where most of your “millions of murdered Iraqis” came from, so one could also argue that these dead Iraqis could also be attributed to Bush Sr. Wrap your mind around that for awhile.
If we are going to start invading, occupying, and nation building every country who has a ruthless dictator then we are going to be busy for a very, very long time. Besides, the current administration kept trying to tell the UN as well as the American public that Iraq was a threat to other nations, even the world, because of its (Iraq) possession of WMD. Iraq had no WMD, therefore Iraq was no threat to anyone. Saddam may have been a threat to people inside the Iraq border, but since when did that alone constitute reason enough for war?
Wareagle, I wish you and every other soldier going to overseas the best of luck and hope that you all come back home safe, alive, and intact.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2004,5:44 pm
CPU_slave--at the risk of pointing out the obvious.Are we back to this old argument again? Threat to his own people and threat to other nations are two completely different subjects. Hitler, as it turn out, was a threat TO HIS OWN PEOPLE, AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE "NEIGHBORHOOD". Ask the European Jews of WW II If the citizens felt so threatened by Saddam, then why was there no revolution? Ask the European Jews the same question. Couldn’t these people get their own hands dirty? Oh, that’s right, they tried that once when Bush Sr.Neville Chamberlain, PM of Great Britain, and one of the all-time "appeasers" did the same thing.said he would help them, and that help never came. Actually, this is where most of your “millions of murdered Iraqis” came from, six million Jewsso one could also argue that these dead Iraqis could also be attributed to Bush Sr. Bush Sr. "cut and ran" under pressure--so did Clinton in Somalia, and Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs. No WONDER people in the world don't trust us! Now, I see by a poll that 4 in 10 Democrats think we should just pull out, and 3 in 10 think we should pull SOME troops out. History repeated--NOBODY will trust us to do what we say we will do. Wrap your mind around that for awhile.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 10 2004,5:57 pm
Right, compare the Iraqis to the Jews and Saddam to Adolph Hitler and then we're sure to all get behind the Bush and his cronies. The current administration is a bigger threat to America than Saddam ever was.
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 10 2004,6:27 pm
You know Liberal, you make a lot of good points, and then you say something dumb like that. The current administration, even if you believe they are misguided or even corrupt, they are not more of a threat then Saddam was. I mean are you for real with that? I wish a lot of things since 9-11 would have been handled different, but I am not afraid of my own government yet. The Patriot Act scares me a little, but I am still studying it and I hope it gets throttled back. You are such a sharp guy, it is to hard to hear you say something that is completely political rhetoric and makes no sense.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2004,7:28 pm
Where's the Saddam--Hitler comparison?--I didn't make it! Iraqis and Jews--you've got to admit, there IS a direct comparison--from Neville Chamberlin, to the Warsaw Ghetto. I don't know how much more direct comparison you can make--right down to the "it doesn't concern US", to the "why didn't they take up arms" to the policy of "appeasement". Instead of me telling you why it is the SAME, why don't YOU tell us how it is DIFFERENT?"Cut and Run" is still the WORST possible foreign policy, no matter WHO does it. As mentioned, Kennedy killed people and alienated Allies in the Bay of Pigs--Bush Sr. in Iraq--Clinton in Somalia, Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam--no WONDER our allies don't trust us! The ONE THING YOU CAN'T LAY ON "W" IS INCONSISTENCY--EVEN HIS DETRACTORS SAY THAT HE DOES WHAT HE SAYS HE WILL DO--to Saddam's dismay. (He thought he would get protection from the U.N.).
Given the choice between someone that does exactly what he says he means to do, and one who is indecisive or flip-flops, I'll take the decisive person every time. We had a saying in the Skydiving community: "He who hesitates--shall inherit the Earth!"
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 10 2004,8:17 pm
Sorry if you don't agree with me, but, I stand behind what I said. I don't believe that Saddam was ever a threat to the American way of life, but, I do think the current administration is a big threat to the American way of life. The current administration has violated more americans civil rights than any other administration I can think of and it's all being done in the name of homeland security.| Quote |
Where's the Saddam--Hitler comparison?--I didn't make it! |
Cpuslave posted "Threat to his own people and threat to other nations are two completely different subjects." to which you replied, "Hitler, as it turn out, was a threat TO HIS OWN PEOPLE, AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE "NEIGHBORHOOD".
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 10 2004,8:34 pm
A tenuous (at best), and unintentional reference to Hitler (overused).I don't see the Administration as a threat. I have some misgivings about the Patriot Act, enacted by Congress with near unanimous acclaim after 9/11. I don't like the way it reads, but on the other hand, it hasn't been used. If it WAS used inappropriately, I'd be against it.
Democrats don't like Ann Coulter, but I like her quote on removing Saddam--"As Bush said, after detailing some of Saddam Hussein's charming practices: "If this is not evil, then Evil has no meaning." It's not as if anyone is worried that we're making a horrible miscalculation and could be removing the Iraqi Abraham Lincoln by mistake!"
Examples of how the Administration threatens the AMERICAN way of life?
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 10 2004,8:53 pm
| Quote |
| Hitler, as it turn out, was a threat TO HIS OWN PEOPLE, AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE "NEIGHBORHOOD". Ask the European Jews of WW II |
Jim, unfortunatly the plight of the jews during the late 1930's and early 1940's was not reason enough for the US to get involved in WWII- I believe Pearl Harbor was the incident that get us involved.
| Quote |
| Instead of me telling you why it is the SAME, why don't YOU tell us how it is DIFFERENT? |
| Quote |
| Cut and Run" is still the WORST possible foreign policy, no matter WHO does it. As mentioned, Kennedy killed people and alienated Allies in the Bay of Pigs--Bush Sr. in Iraq--Clinton in Somalia, Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam--no WONDER our allies don't trust us! |
I, for one, am not advocating for immediate and quick withdrawl from Iraq. Leaving now would only make a bad situation worse. My problem lies in that we went into Iraq in the first place, based on lies told by the current administration. Now that we have crossed that bridge, we need to be looking for international assistance to offset the cost and the number of US troops, yet this administration is still acting like a selfish child when it comes to this.
| Quote |
| The ONE THING YOU CAN'T LAY ON "W" IS INCONSISTENCY--EVEN HIS DETRACTORS SAY THAT HE DOES WHAT HE SAYS HE WILL DO-- |
After 9/11 he told the nation he would go after those responsible. Iraq was not responsible and Osama is still on the lose... and these are just two examples of dubya not doing what he said he would do...
| Quote |
| I don't believe that Saddam was ever a threat to the American way of life, but, I do think the current administration is a big threat to the American way of life. The current administration has violated more americans civil rights than any other administration I can think of and it's all being done in the name of homeland security. |
Could not have said it any better myself, Liberal!
| Quote |
| Examples of how the Administration threatens the AMERICAN way of life? |
Americans being arrested as being 'terrorists' and the administration trying them in courts with all public records sealed. Acts passed into law that allow the government to gather information on it's citizens that border on violating the basic rights to privacy. Jim, the patriot act may not have been abused -yet- but as history has shown, if the law can be abused it is only a matter of time before it will be.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 10 2004,10:48 pm
| Quote |
Examples of how the Administration threatens the AMERICAN way of life? |
With the PATRIOT Act the FBI could have searched your house today when you were gone at work and they don't even have to bother letting you know they were there.
They can also force anyone(doctor, library, Internet service providers) to turn over all their records on you and you wouldn't know they had searched any of these things because they can prohibit the recipients of the search order from telling anyone about the search, even when there is no need for secrecy.(which obviously violates the recipients right to free speech)
The FBI could have initiated this whole investigation based solely on something that you posted on this forum. (which obviously violates your right to free speech)
The worst part of the whole thing is that the government is no longer required to show any evidence that you're an "agent of a foreign power," to initiate any of these investigations.
< ACLU Website: Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act >
< CNN: Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints >
Posted by Madd Max on Mar. 11 2004,12:08 am
| Quote (Liberal @ Mar. 10 2004,10:48:pm) |
| [With the PATRIOT Act the FBI could have searched your house today when you were gone at work and they don't even have to bother letting you know they were there. |
To make the Patriot Act permanent is nothing more than an all out assault on the Civil Liberties of every American in this country. Stop an think for a second here doesn't Liberal Qoute sound like what was going on in the Soviet Union back in the 60's and 70's with the KGB. Now the goverment is doing it to US!
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 11 2004,7:37 am
| Quote (cpu_slave @ Mar. 10 2004,8:53:pm) |
| Saddam could be more compared to Pol-Pot, and the only difference between Cambodia and Iraq is the black gold under the ground. |
Good example cpu_slave. I think Saddam's actions has a lot of similarities with the khmer-rouge (probably mispelled that). What was much more shocking are the things done by his sons, they didn't kill near as many I'm sure, but seemed to commit atrocities purely for the fun of it. The incident that shocked me the most, I think it was Uday and his entourage came upon a wedding. Himself and his bodyguards raped the newlywed bride repeatedly, the husband, obviously in a rage cursed them, and was soon killed for doing so. I'm sure you can name many dictators that have done things as bad as or even worse then that of Saddam, either way, his sons deserved to die, and so does he.
As for the patriot act, its not a question of if it will be used inappropriately, its a question of when. It's designed to be used to violate civil liberties! I've heard people try to explain why we have to do this to protect America. We can't protect America by getting rid of what gives us freedom! Our biggest problem isn't the terrorists, or North Korea. The real axis of evil is right here in our country, and its trying to destroy our way of life by saying their trying to help us!
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 11 2004,9:56 am
From previous post| Quote |
| I have some misgivings about the Patriot Act, enacted by Congress with near unanimous acclaim after 9/11. I don't like the way it reads, but on the other hand, it hasn't been used. If it WAS used inappropriately, I'd be against it. |
than me. I have misgivings about the Patriot Act--I think it was a knee-jerk, rush-to-be-seen-as-DOING-SOMETHING act, but it WAS passed by huge acclaim in both houses--98-1 in the Senate, 337-79 in the House. Obviously, a lot of liberal legislators signed on. They are now claiming "we didn't know what we were voting on, we didn't have time to read it". If so, this is indicative of a much larger problem--the amount of legislation coming out of Congress is so voluminous that legislators REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON!Thankfully, there have been no abuses of the system--yet. From CNN Civil Rights Complaints--
| Quote |
| The inspector general's office said 272 of those complaints came within its jurisdiction, but even many of those complaints "do not raise issues" that call for its investigation. |
This is yet one more reason that all laws should have "sunset provisions"--automatic expiration times, after which the laws must be reconsidered for merit.
By the way--98-1 in the Senate--with only Senator Russ Feingold dissenting--that would mean Sen. Kerry must have voted FOR the issue--must be another one of his flip-flops!
The GOOD NEWS is that it wasn't one of the 64% of the votes he MISSED! 
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 11 2004,10:46 am
| Quote |
Thankfully, there have been no abuses of the system--yet. From CNN Civil Rights Complaints-- Quote The inspector general's office said 272 of those complaints came within its jurisdiction, but even many of those complaints "do not raise issues" that call for its investigation. |
You must have missed the first paragraph where it said
| Quote |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The internal watchdog of the Justice Department has found 34 new credible civil rights and civil liberties violations under the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act, according to a report released Monday. |
Also the paragraph directly over the one you posted. Explained that there were 34 civil rights violations in that 6 month period that were deemed credible and are being investigated.
| Quote |
For the period of December 16 to June 15, 34 allegations were deemed credible and are being investigated by various officials within the department. Those 34 were among 1,073 complaints received during the period that suggested a Patriot Act-related civil rights or civil liberties connection. |
I sure hope you're a little more thorough when you read a flight plan. "Oh, you wanted to go to Arizona?... I'm sorry, I thought it said Manitoba, I'll just turn this plane around and we'll be there in no time at all"
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 11 2004,11:08 am
1073 complaints so far--only | Quote |
| 34 allegations were deemed credible and are being investigated by various officials within the department |
(sarcasm)As Bill Clinton would maintain after his impeachment--"No convictions" (yet!)
34 cases being investigated, none yet ascertained to be true. You wouldn't want to rush to judgement, like the 98-1 Senate Vote, would you? (sarcasm) Another example of "we must be seen as doing SOMETHING".Seriously, the law is flawed, and needs to be changed. Just pointing out that there are a LOT of legilators (on both sides of the aisle) that should be hanging their heads in shame--the question is, who has the guts to actually propose the change, and which legislators will vote for it?
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 11 2004,1:17 pm
| Quote | ||
| Quote Evidently Cpu_slave has not yet heard about the millions of murdered Iraqs' by the dictator Sadam who was indeed a major threat to his own people
|
Cpu_slave, yes a threat to his own people and threat to other nations are two completely different subjects. But a threat to other nations is not what you said. You said:
| Quote |
| because to this day I have seen absolutely no proof that Iraq was a threat to anyone |
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 11 2004,3:05 pm
| Quote |
| Jim, unfortunatly the plight of the jews during the late 1930's and early 1940's was not reason enough for the US to get involved in WWII- |
| Quote |
| I believe Pearl Harbor was the incident that get us involved. |
| Quote |
| The european jews did not try a failed revolt to overthrow their government, |
Equal Opportunity Mass Murderer of Millions, I'll accept your alliance with my point of view! | Quote |
| and the jews were not victoms of years UN sanctions] |
(sarcasm)These are the people that liberals think we should ask permission of before taking any action--a third-rate dictator debating society, largely financed and propped up by the U.S.--the people that have never won a war yet. Even Clinton gave up on the sorry U.N., and used NATO in Kosovo (for the same reason, liberals are talking about using NATO in Iraq--Iraq is SO CLOSE TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC!
(sarcasm)WHATEVER THE QUESTION IS, THE U.N. ISN'T THE ANSWER!
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 12 2004,10:41 am
cwolff- so are you saying that Saddam is to be considered synonymous with Iraq? Saddam may have been a threat to Iraqis, but Iraq (as a nation) was not a threat to any other country. Your attempt to say that I am ‘taking out of both sides of (my) mouth’ just goes to show that illiteracy is still a problem in this country. | Quote |
| OUR problem was that we stood idly by and let it happen--a policy of "non-involvement" |
And it appears that our policy of standing idly by and letting it happen has continued on to this day. Like I have stated in the past, other countries with brutal dictators have and still are performing atrocities on their own populations, so why are we not taking down all these other leaders as well? I can tell you why, because none of these other nations has a resource in their ground that the US is dependent on. And for the record, I do know who bombed Pearl Harbor and what I was saying is that it was that attack that drug the US into WWII and not the plight of the jews.
| Quote |
| WHATEVER THE QUESTION IS, THE U.N. ISN'T THE ANSWER! |
Then do you have a better suggestion on how we can get other nations to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq by supplying troops and cash? I’m asking because the ‘coalition of the willing’ has been ‘willing’ only in spirit, with no other real support. Besides, I thought the UN was sitting on a pile of money from the ‘oil for food’ program, so why are we as taxpayers throwing 87+ Billion at this?
Posted by cwolff on Mar. 12 2004,11:43 am
Cpu_slave, I am not saying that Saddam is synonymous with Iraq, but I did say that Cpu_slave is synonymous with ignoramus!
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 12 2004,12:00 pm
| Quote |
| Then do you have a better suggestion on how we can get other nations to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq by supplying troops and cash? |
The lesson was driven home in WW I--troops will not fight under foreign commanders (even British Commonwealth troops--Canada and ANZAC). They haven't been used effectively since--a period of 86 years--but that doesn't stop liberals from proposing it. Even in the NATO "peacekeeping" efforts--troops are segregated by specialties--the U.S. will take the air war, another nation can put in ground troops, etc.
In proposing a U.N. action, liberals forget that the U.S. now fights a technical war. Close air support, or Navy bombardment requires close coordination. Many nations not only don't know how to command such an operation, but lack the ability to coordinate it, and the communications to accomplish it. The U.S. isn't going to let loose access to its Command and control AWACS, for example, or give JDAMs to some third-world country. Can you imagine, as a U.S. soldier, being asked to fight by a third-world "general" that received his promotion through political patronage--whose ideas of command may have stopped in the Napoleonic era, or the Charge of the Light Brigade?
Cash? Who supplies approximately 1/4 of the U.N. cash in the first place? It would be like giving money to the U.N., so they could spend it on ourselves! Only liberals believe that you can give money to the government, and get ALL of it back, without government inefficiency.
| Quote |
| Besides, I thought the UN was sitting on a pile of money from the ‘oil for food’ program, so why are we as taxpayers throwing 87+ Billion at this? |
If the U.N. DOES have a "pile of money" under "oil for food" (they SHOULDN'T, because the oil money was supposed to go to SADDAM to buy food--but it appears the ever-efficient, ever insightful U.N. LET HIM BUILD PALACES INSTEAD) --why ISN'T the U.N. using that money to rebuild Iraq? OR, did the U.N. SQUANDER the money? OR, if the U.N. is "victimizing" the Iraqi people with their program, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT THOSE CLOWNS TO BECOME INVOLVED?AS I SAID BEFORE, WHATEVER THE QUESTION IS, THE U.N. ISN'T THE ANSWER --unless it is corruption, inefficiency, inability to institute and oversee its own programs, cowardice, and a 60-year record of being on the losing side of any conflict!
Posted by cpu_slave on Mar. 12 2004,12:46 pm
cwolff- The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us 'normal' people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering, but we sometimes forget that there are 'challenged' persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your posts, it just wouldn't have been 'right' - Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.--end of feeding the board troll--
| Quote |
| troops will not fight under foreign commanders… In proposing a U.N. action, liberals forget that the U.S. now fights a technical war. Close air support, or Navy bombardment requires close coordination. Many nations not only don't know how to command such an operation… |
Jim- I was in now way suggesting that we turn over command and control to 3rd world commanders. I was simply stating that we could use the UN to get some troops from member nations to police the country- sort of like our own troops are doing now. The major combat has ended- or don’t you even believe what duh-bya told you?
| Quote |
| Cash? Who supplies approximately 1/4 of the U.N. cash in the first place? |
The UN claims the US still owes money it has never paid, but that is an entirely another issue. Even so, ¼ of $87billion is cheaper than picking up the entire tab on our own.
| Quote |
| Wasn't it you that called the Iraqi people "victims of U.N. sanctions--or was it some other liberal? |
Yes it was I who stated that, and no the UN did not simply hand Saddam cash and tell him to buy food. The oil was shipped and sold, and the UN handled the transactions. Some of the proceeds went to repay Kuwait, some went towards purchasing food and medical supplies that were shipped back to Iraq, and the rest went into a UN controlled fund. Saddam gained most of his money for building palaces by selling oil rights to other nations and selling the food and medical supplies received from the UN to his own people. With the sanctions in place, this was really the only way these items came into Iraq.
| Quote |
| why ISN'T the U.N. using that money to rebuild Iraq? |
Because the US is in complete control and will not work with the UN at all. Look, the UN has a poor track record and I am not disputing that. Along the same line I am also not advocating complete handover of Iraq to the UN either. All I am suggesting is that the US try and work with the UN to not only offset the cost (personnel and cash) but to also show the Iraqis that others are also there to help. To do this right is going to take years and cost billions of dollars, so do you want to see this done with US military personnel and US tax payers money alone? Like I said, if not the UN then I would like to hear what your suggestion would be because after reading your post over and over I still did not see anything from you other than your berating of liberals and the UN.
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 12 2004,3:07 pm
| Quote |
| Why isn't the U.N. using the money to rebuilt Iraq? |
| Quote |
| Because the US is in complete control and will not work with the UN at all |
The DIFFERENCE is that the U.N. (and the Hollywood actors playing foreign policy experts) would like total U.N. control.
| Quote |
| To do this right is going to take years and cost billions of dollars, so do you want to see this done with US military personnel and US tax payers money alone? |
"Would I rather see this done with the U.S. military and U.S. money alone?" Yes, if it means doing it right. It sounds like we agree on the lack of efficiency and lack of control of the U.N. We DARE NOT FAIL--this is a chance to showcase what we can do--and that we will take care of our obligations.
| Quote |
| Like I said, if not the UN then I would like to hear what your suggestion would be because after reading your post over and over I still did not see anything from you other than your berating of liberals and the UN. |
"Berating liberals and the U.N."? Just stating the facts--you seem to agree that the U.N. has a less-than-stellar record. Berating liberals? That's just a sport--though it is so easy that the ASPCL (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Liberals) probably would make it a crime for taking advantage of liberals, because they are so vulnerable.
(sarcasm)I know it isn't easy being a liberal these days, having to apologize for everything that John Kerry says (either what he says today or what he said yesterday) Don't take it personally--this is all in fun--I wouldn't trade barbs with anyone that couldn't defend himself--and you do that WELL. Can you imagine Mary Matalin and James Carville living in the same house--if THEY can get along--we all can!
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Mar. 14 2004,1:10 pm
Yeah, the UN sucks the big one.Jim- you are right out of 74 member nations the US pays 25% of the total monies to the UN. Shouldn't we pay 1/74th?
And the reports of the US owing money is just pure BS, go and check out the GOA's web site and filter thru all of the wasted money the US throws around, and you will find the US pays its dues. The money that most of the UN lovers out their decry that the US is not paying is money the US pledges for certain causes, but usually under conditions, if those conditions are not met the US withholds the money.
I for one would love to see the US tell the UN to KISS OFF, and go pound sand up their Azzes. And move that cess-pool of a socialst hotbed building over to Hauge where it belongs.
Sec. General Another CakeHole and his ilk just hate the idea of Americans having protected freedoms, and that the general populace would never bow to their will intesifies their IRE even more.
I could post a whole lot more on the UN and its BS practices, and their stupid mandate on NOT WINNING Wars.
Death to the UN........MOLON LABE
Posted by jimhanson on Mar. 15 2004,9:04 am
From the London Daily Telegraph| Quote |
| UN caves in on inquiry into its Iraq oil-for-food 'scandal' |
| Quote |
| KPMG accountants and the Freshfields law firm have been instructed to investigate a list of irregularities including: UN approval of oil contracts to "non-end users" - middlemen who sold their stake on for a profit. A standard 10 per cent addition to the value of oil invoices, which generated up to £2.2 billion in illegal cash funds for Saddam. A fee of two per cent, levied on all oil-for-food transactions to allow the UN to inspect all food and medical imports - which does not appear to have been effectively spent since food was rotten and medicines out of date. The role of Middle Eastern banks, their auditing and their possible suspected connection to Saddam's secret service. |
Perhaps noted Hollywood lefty Michael Moore was unintentionally right when he said "it's all about oil"--but not U.S. use of that oil, U.N. use of the oil! The U.N. can't even hand out free food anymore--and the Hollywood "elite" types are so naive as to think that this "organization"
(sarcasm) should take a leading role in world affairs?
Posted by MrTarzan on Mar. 15 2004,7:31 pm
So how come we don't hear about Russia and Frances bribe taking from Saddam? The documents have been released, we know it happened, (which explains the vetos) but no one seems to care. What is up with that?