Anyone else mad that terrorist attacks happened under the president's watch?

[LordJezo]

World Trade Center bombing..

Two US Embasy bombings..

A Navy ship bombed..


Anyone else mad at these attacks happening under Clinton's watch?

 

[bozack]

more upset that nothing was done after the fact.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack
more upset that nothing was done after the fact.

What did Reaagan do after 200 Marines were killed in the Terrorist bombing of their Barracks in Lebanon? Oh yeah we attacked Greneda

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack
more upset that nothing was done after the fact.

What did Reaagan do after 200 Marines were killed in the Terrorist bombing of their Barracks in Lebanon? Oh yeah we attacked Greneda

LOL,
Also correct me if I'm wrong but it was during the Reagan and Bush Sr. era that they were "buddy buddy" with both Bin Laden and Saddam in the 80's. They cut back alley deals with both of these monsters, now they want to cry foul that they are now our enemies.

 

[Orsorum]

I'm more upset that after 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan and then, instead of sticking around to clean up, we moved right onto Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm more upset that after 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan and then, instead of sticking around to clean up, we moved right onto Iraq.

I'm not. Saddam needed to be dealt with. Afghanistan is progressing every day.

The thing I'm mad about is that there are Terrorists who kill innocent civilians for "fun" or "sport" it seems. I'm mad that some people don't understand that it's an us or them situation we are in. I'm mad that people feel a need to blame someone else but the TERRORISTS for the attacks...but that's just me.

CkG

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm more upset that after 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan and then, instead of sticking around to clean up, we moved right onto Iraq.

I'm not. Saddam needed to be dealt with. Afghanistan is progressing every day.

The thing I'm mad about is that there are Terrorists who kill innocent civilians for "fun" or "sport" it seems. I'm mad that some people don't understand that it's an us or them situation we are in. I'm mad that people feel a need to blame someone else but the TERRORISTS for the attacks...but that's just me.

CkG

I'm mad that the term terrorism is being used as a buzzword to demonize the use of asymmetric warfare, which in reality has always been used to fight wars, and in doing so the political aims of those freedom fighters is brushed aside without so much as a glance. I'm not defending the actions of Usama Bin Laden, for he needs to be found and brought to justice, but we must take care that in the process we do not turn him into a martyr.

 

[CaptnKirk]

As the facts of who did what, and to whom - here are the facts that are coming out:

1) Nearly 1,000 killed by terrorists under Reagans watch - no response.

2) Nearly 500 more killed under Bush-1's watch, not affiliated with the Gulf war - no response.

3) Less than 50 killed under Clinton's watch - responded with launch of attacks on al Queda in Afganistan.
But the Republicans began the Monica investigation after the Whitewater fiasco, and said that he was
trying to distract the nation from his personal problems - Wag the Dog.

4) Bush-2 wouldn't listen to the outgoing Clinton Administrations warnings, as it didn't fit the agenda
of the second coming of Christ, with all of Bush-1's deciples reverting to the Cold Ward that they had
orchestrated under Reagan and Bush-1. That part of history was dead, but they wanted to resurect it,
because that's all they knew, and didn't want to step up to modern times - live in the past with old gruddges.
Lullabye, and good night, sleep tight Dubya, you will always remain clueless. it's not 1991 anymore.
Bush would have to be a lot smarter than he is just to be qualified to be stupid.

Before 9-11, Clinton was the only one to retaliate against terrorism, and the was chastised for doing so.

Bushes arrogance and unwillingness to be brought up to date agravated the deaths of nearly 3,000 with 9-11,
and he has dirverted all response and funding away from those who really were responsible, for his grugdge match.
He should be thrown out, it's too bad he can't be held and procecuted for incomptency and ignorance,
that's all he has brought to the world over the last 3+ years.
We will not recover from his fiscal blunders in our lifetimes, nor in those of our children.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack
more upset that nothing was done after the fact.

What did Reaagan do after 200 Marines were killed in the Terrorist bombing of their Barracks in Lebanon? Oh yeah we attacked Greneda

Yup, he should have salted the earth of Lebanon, IMHO.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'm more upset that after 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan and then, instead of sticking around to clean up, we moved right onto Iraq.

I'm not. Saddam needed to be dealt with.

I'm more upset that the Dub felt the need to BS us into supporting his excellent adventure there instead of just telling us the real reasons and letting us decide on those merits.

Afghanistan is progressing every day.

Into a Civil War? There might not be much we can do about it as it seems to be a cultural thing. They spend as much energy fighting their allies as they do fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The thing I'm mad about is that there are Terrorists who kill innocent civilians for "fun" or "sport" it seems. I'm mad that some people don't understand that it's an us or them situation we are in. I'm mad that people feel a need to blame someone else but the TERRORISTS for the attacks...but that's just me.

CkG

I agree

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack
more upset that nothing was done after the fact.

What did Reaagan do after 200 Marines were killed in the Terrorist bombing of their Barracks in Lebanon? Oh yeah we attacked Greneda

Yup, he should have salted the earth of Lebanon, IMHO.

Or at least let the Marines carry live ammunition. That's one thing I never understood about deploying the Marines there. If you are going to put them in Harm's way you should at least let them be equipped to defend themselves.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: classy


LOL,
Also correct me if I'm wrong but it was during the Reagan and Bush Sr. era that they were "buddy buddy" with both Bin Laden and Saddam in the 80's. They cut back alley deals with both of these monsters, now they want to cry foul that they are now our enemies.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. BUt I would not call them buddy buddy. I don't know why people keep bringing up the lame arguement. Please look at Iran-U.S. relations in the late seventies (help for Saddam) and U.S. Soviet relations in the eighties to understand how Bin Laden received money from the U.S. Not saying any of that was right, but just wanted to point out the U.S. government and these people were far from being friends.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack
more upset that nothing was done after the fact.

What did Reaagan do after 200 Marines were killed in the Terrorist bombing of their Barracks in Lebanon? Oh yeah we attacked Greneda

Yup, he should have salted the earth of Lebanon, IMHO.

Or at least let the Marines carry live ammunition. That's one thing I never understood about deploying the Marines there. If you are going to put them in Harm's way you should at least let them be equipped to defend themselves.

Agreed.

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack
more upset that nothing was done after the fact.

What did Reaagan do after 200 Marines were killed in the Terrorist bombing of their Barracks in Lebanon? Oh yeah we attacked Greneda

Yup, he should have salted the earth of Lebanon, IMHO.

Or at least let the Marines carry live ammunition. That's one thing I never understood about deploying the Marines there. If you are going to put them in Harm's way you should at least let them be equipped to defend themselves.

Guess it's good then that Kerry constantly voted against weapon systems and military things of the sort.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: classy


LOL,
Also correct me if I'm wrong but it was during the Reagan and Bush Sr. era that they were "buddy buddy" with both Bin Laden and Saddam in the 80's. They cut back alley deals with both of these monsters, now they want to cry foul that they are now our enemies.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. BUt I would not call them buddy buddy. I don't know why people keep bringing up the lame arguement. Please look at Iran-U.S. relations in the late seventies (help for Saddam) and U.S. Soviet relations in the eighties to understand how Bin Laden received money from the U.S. Not saying any of that was right, but just wanted to point out the U.S. government and these people were far from being friends.

Funny thing is that during the early 80's Ollie the Traitor North and others were involved with secret arms deals with the Iranians who were supposedly our enemy.

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
As the facts of who did what, and to whom - here are the facts that are coming out:

1) Nearly 1,000 killed by terrorists under Reagans watch

2) Nearly 500 more killed under Bush-1's watch

3) Less than 50 killed under Clinton's watch

Yup. Because 50 lives are not as important as the more killed under the others.

Only 50 dead? Who cares! Thousand killed during Bush? Horror!!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bozack
more upset that nothing was done after the fact.

What did Reaagan do after 200 Marines were killed in the Terrorist bombing of their Barracks in Lebanon? Oh yeah we attacked Greneda

Yup, he should have salted the earth of Lebanon, IMHO.

Or at least let the Marines carry live ammunition. That's one thing I never understood about deploying the Marines there. If you are going to put them in Harm's way you should at least let them be equipped to defend themselves.

Guess it's good then that Kerry constantly voted against weapon systems and military things of the sort.

And this relates to the fact that the Marines weren't allowed to carry live ammunition over in Beruit how?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: classy


LOL,
Also correct me if I'm wrong but it was during the Reagan and Bush Sr. era that they were "buddy buddy" with both Bin Laden and Saddam in the 80's. They cut back alley deals with both of these monsters, now they want to cry foul that they are now our enemies.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. BUt I would not call them buddy buddy. I don't know why people keep bringing up the lame arguement. Please look at Iran-U.S. relations in the late seventies (help for Saddam) and U.S. Soviet relations in the eighties to understand how Bin Laden received money from the U.S. Not saying any of that was right, but just wanted to point out the U.S. government and these people were far from being friends.

But folks on the right wing act like these men just showed up without an invite. They got the power they got from the backing of Republican presidents. Plain and simple. Now they want to run around and point fingers and call names at democrats, lying to the public. The truth is the back alley deals they cut are the real reason for the issues of today.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
As the facts of who did what, and to whom - here are the facts that are coming out:

1) Nearly 1,000 killed by terrorists under Reagans watch

2) Nearly 500 more killed under Bush-1's watch

3) Less than 50 killed under Clinton's watch

Yup. Because 50 lives are not as important as the more killed under the others.

Only 50 dead? Who cares! Thousand killed during Bush? Horror!!

Is that all you read in that post? Goddamn you're stupid.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordJezo
Guess it's good then that Kerry constantly voted against weapon systems and military things of the sort.

And this relates to the fact that the Marines weren't allowed to carry live ammunition over in Beruit how?

My first thought as well.

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
As the facts of who did what, and to whom - here are the facts that are coming out:

1) Nearly 1,000 killed by terrorists under Reagans watch

2) Nearly 500 more killed under Bush-1's watch

3) Less than 50 killed under Clinton's watch

Yup. Because 50 lives are not as important as the more killed under the others.

Only 50 dead? Who cares! Thousand killed during Bush? Horror!!

Is that all you read in that post? Goddamn you're stupid.

Eh. Just doing it the way the Democrats do it.

Those were your words. Don't cry that I put what you said back in your face.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
As the facts of who did what, and to whom - here are the facts that are coming out:

1) Nearly 1,000 killed by terrorists under Reagans watch

2) Nearly 500 more killed under Bush-1's watch

3) Less than 50 killed under Clinton's watch

Yup. Because 50 lives are not as important as the more killed under the others.

Only 50 dead? Who cares! Thousand killed during Bush? Horror!!

Is that all you read in that post? Goddamn you're stupid.

Eh. Just doing it the way the Democrats do it.

Those were your words. Don't cry that I put what you said back in your face.

WTF are you talking about? Your posts get more and more inane as you go on.

 

[LordJezo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
As the facts of who did what, and to whom - here are the facts that are coming out:

1) Nearly 1,000 killed by terrorists under Reagans watch

2) Nearly 500 more killed under Bush-1's watch

3) Less than 50 killed under Clinton's watch

Yup. Because 50 lives are not as important as the more killed under the others.

Only 50 dead? Who cares! Thousand killed during Bush? Horror!!

Is that all you read in that post? Goddamn you're stupid.

Eh. Just doing it the way the Democrats do it.

Those were your words. Don't cry that I put what you said back in your face.

WTF are you talking about? Your posts get more and more inane as you go on.

Kind of like Kerry accepting major support of a draft dodger.

But hey, it's Clinton, so no one cares.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
As the facts of who did what, and to whom - here are the facts that are coming out:

1) Nearly 1,000 killed by terrorists under Reagans watch

2) Nearly 500 more killed under Bush-1's watch

3) Less than 50 killed under Clinton's watch

Yup. Because 50 lives are not as important as the more killed under the others.

Only 50 dead? Who cares! Thousand killed during Bush? Horror!!

Is that all you read in that post? Goddamn you're stupid.

Eh. Just doing it the way the Democrats do it.

Those were your words. Don't cry that I put what you said back in your face.

WTF are you talking about? Your posts get more and more inane as you go on.

Kind of like Kerry accepting major support of a draft dodger.

But hey, it's Clinton, so no one cares.

Of course not as he isn't in power any more.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: LordJezo

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
As the facts of who did what, and to whom - here are the facts that are coming out:

1) Nearly 1,000 killed by terrorists under Reagans watch

2) Nearly 500 more killed under Bush-1's watch

3) Less than 50 killed under Clinton's watch

Yup. Because 50 lives are not as important as the more killed under the others.

Only 50 dead? Who cares! Thousand killed during Bush? Horror!!

Is that all you read in that post? Goddamn you're stupid.

Eh. Just doing it the way the Democrats do it.

Those were your words. Don't cry that I put what you said back in your face.

WTF are you talking about? Your posts get more and more inane as you go on.

Actually, while he's speaking like a babbling idiot, he is making his point of view really clear. He has decided Democrats are bad, and Republicans are good, without exception, and he basically ignoring what people that disagree are saying. Sort of the same thing as when you don't want to hear someone say something, and you put your fingers in your ears and make noises so you don't hear. I'm right, and no one can tell me anything that might be contrary to what I think..no no no no no!

*stomps foot*
*pouts*



Or something...