A journalist once asked the late Ghandi what he thought of the western civilization. Ghandi replied: "Western Civilization? That would be a good idea!"
Your a POS.. Talk that non-sense to my father who saw heavy combat in Korea. He'd punch you in the face. Tell my father that he's an Anti-American. I would love to see that.
Hahaha....
Hey guys.. Does anyone wanna watch my dad kick this fat nerds face in when he calls my father an anti-american.
Haha.. stick to eating your doritoes and drinking your mountain dew.
idiot. :|
I never thought I would see this forum degrade to such a point where someone is boasting that their father can kick someone else's ass.
That's just pathetic.
So let me guess compelling the leaders of factions in a pitched battle decades old to negotiate is too hard and too fast . . . but bombing a country into submission and then imposing a system of government is perfectly deliberate.
Contrary to popular belief . . . the US president is not the leader of the free world. He leads a country which believes it has all the right answers to every question that's ever been asked or ever will be asked . . . and if you doubt it . . . we don't care. Clinton was indeed overly enamored with his popularity and certainly was a 3rd string leader at best. In Somalia, you can blame Clinton for mission creep but GHW Bush commited US troops to the region NOT Clinton. He pulled US troops out b/c he correctly ascertained that the typical American doesn't give a shyte about Somalia then or now. It was the wrong choice morally but Clinton wasn't the first or most recent US president with a warped sense of propriety.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Quote
As my pet pregnant gopher would say "According to the law of aerodynamics my friend Herbie the bumble bee can't fly... do you suppose that because he can't read he goes ahead and flies any how" I guess when we know what we don't know we can easily seek to sate... but when we, like me, don't know what I or we don't know we may only presume to know. And therein we find the enigma.
I strongly suspect the actions taken by Clinton had little to do with what the typical American thinks but, rather, what seemed the most reasonable action given the alternatives as suggested by his advisors. Same goes for the Bushes.
Contrary to popular belief . . . the US president is not the leader of the free world. He leads a country which believes it has all the right answers to every question that's ever been asked or ever will be asked . . . and if you doubt it . . . we don't care. Clinton was indeed overly enamored with his popularity and certainly was a 3rd string leader at best. In Somalia, you can blame Clinton for mission creep but GHW Bush commited US troops to the region NOT Clinton. He pulled US troops out b/c he correctly ascertained that the typical American doesn't give a shyte about Somalia then or now. It was the wrong choice morally but Clinton wasn't the first or most recent US president with a warped sense of propriety.[/quote]
As my pet pregnant gopher would say "According to the law of aerodynamics my friend Herbie the bumble bee can't fly... do you suppose that because he can't read he goes ahead and flies any how" I guess when we know what we don't know we can easily seek to sate... but when we, like me, don't know what I or we don't know we may only presume to know. And therein we find the enigma.
I strongly suspect the actions taken by Clinton had little to do with what the typical American thinks but, rather, what seemed the most reasonable action given the alternatives as suggested by his advisors. Same goes for the Bushes.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So let me guess compelling the leaders of factions in a pitched battle decades old to negotiate is too hard and too fast . . . but bombing a country into submission and then imposing a system of government is perfectly deliberate.
Contrary to popular belief . . . the US president is not the leader of the free world. He leads a country which believes it has all the right answers to every question that's ever been asked or ever will be asked . . . and if you doubt it . . . we don't care. Clinton was indeed overly enamored with his popularity and certainly was a 3rd string leader at best. In Somalia, you can blame Clinton for mission creep but GHW Bush commited US troops to the region NOT Clinton. He pulled US troops out b/c he correctly ascertained that the typical American doesn't give a shyte about Somalia then or now. It was the wrong choice morally but Clinton wasn't the first or most recent US president with a warped sense of propriety.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? It is widely acknowledged that Clinton killed any chance for a peace settlement by pushing both parties to accept an agreement that neither they nor their citizens could accept at that time. What does that have to do with Bush and Iraq anyway? Clinton's screwup in the middle east is what it is, regardless of what Bush had done.
Bush committed the troops, and probably had a good idea of what he wanted to do there, Clinton kept them there for over a year without any clear plan. It doesn't matter that Bush sent them there, Clinton kept them there, he could've brought them back earlier if he believed it was a bad idea. Again, Bush's actions do not change the judgment of Clinton's.
He pulled US troops out because he was a spineless coward who would rather spit on the graves of 18 dead servicemen then risk losing a couple points in the popularity polls. We should've been out right away, or we should've stayed to finish the job, he made the worst possible decision when judged by any standard other than the effect on his popularity.
This: "but when we, like me, don't know what I or we don't know we may only presume to know."
Followed by: "Do you have any idea what you're talking about? It is widely acknowledged that Clinton killed any chance for a peace settlement by pushing both parties to accept an agreement that neither they nor their citizens could accept at that time. What does that have to do with Bush and Iraq anyway? Clinton's screwup in the middle east is what it is, regardless of what Bush had done.
Bush committed the troops, and probably had a good idea of what he wanted to do there, Clinton kept them there for over a year without any clear plan. It doesn't matter that Bush sent them there, Clinton kept them there, he could've brought them back earlier if he believed it was a bad idea. Again, Bush's actions do not change the judgment of Clinton's.
He pulled US troops out because he was a spineless coward who would rather spit on the graves of 18 dead servicemen then risk losing a couple points in the popularity polls. We should've been out right away, or we should've stayed to finish the job, he made the worst possible decision when judged by any standard other than the effect on his popularity. "
---------------
Amazing!
Not only may we presume, seems like we are somehow obliged to.
Followed by: "Do you have any idea what you're talking about? It is widely acknowledged that Clinton killed any chance for a peace settlement by pushing both parties to accept an agreement that neither they nor their citizens could accept at that time. What does that have to do with Bush and Iraq anyway? Clinton's screwup in the middle east is what it is, regardless of what Bush had done.
Bush committed the troops, and probably had a good idea of what he wanted to do there, Clinton kept them there for over a year without any clear plan. It doesn't matter that Bush sent them there, Clinton kept them there, he could've brought them back earlier if he believed it was a bad idea. Again, Bush's actions do not change the judgment of Clinton's.
He pulled US troops out because he was a spineless coward who would rather spit on the graves of 18 dead servicemen then risk losing a couple points in the popularity polls. We should've been out right away, or we should've stayed to finish the job, he made the worst possible decision when judged by any standard other than the effect on his popularity. "
---------------
Amazing!
Not only may we presume, seems like we are somehow obliged to. Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So let me guess compelling the leaders of factions in a pitched battle decades old to negotiate is too hard and too fast . . . but bombing a country into submission and then imposing a system of government is perfectly deliberate.
Contrary to popular belief . . . the US president is not the leader of the free world. He leads a country which believes it has all the right answers to every question that's ever been asked or ever will be asked . . . and if you doubt it . . . we don't care. Clinton was indeed overly enamored with his popularity and certainly was a 3rd string leader at best. In Somalia, you can blame Clinton for mission creep but GHW Bush commited US troops to the region NOT Clinton. He pulled US troops out b/c he correctly ascertained that the typical American doesn't give a shyte about Somalia then or now. It was the wrong choice morally but Clinton wasn't the first or most recent US president with a warped sense of propriety.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? It is widely acknowledged that Clinton killed any chance for a peace settlement by pushing both parties to accept an agreement that neither they nor their citizens could accept at that time. What does that have to do with Bush and Iraq anyway? Clinton's screwup in the middle east is what it is, regardless of what Bush had done.
Bush committed the troops, and probably had a good idea of what he wanted to do there, Clinton kept them there for over a year without any clear plan. It doesn't matter that Bush sent them there, Clinton kept them there, he could've brought them back earlier if he believed it was a bad idea. Again, Bush's actions do not change the judgment of Clinton's.
He pulled US troops out because he was a spineless coward who would rather spit on the graves of 18 dead servicemen then risk losing a couple points in the popularity polls. We should've been out right away, or we should've stayed to finish the job, he made the worst possible decision when judged by any standard other than the effect on his popularity.
Oh my, first of all Clinton got them to the table, nobody else. Show me this "widely acknowledged" belief that proves otherwise.
Second of all Clinton followed Powell's plan in Somalia to the bitter end, blame the man who made the horrendous plan.
Remember in the election when Bush criticized Clinton for using troops in nation building? He said he would bring them home from Bosnia, where are they then? Still there. Blame him for that, he has full control and has publicly stated his feelings on this issue.
As far as Clinton's foreign policy, he brought Israel-PLO to the table, the IRA and Uk, he returned a democratically elected leader in Haiti (the UN is currently fvcking everything up there AS USUAL), he committed forces to stop genocide in Bosnia and built international support for this cause. In 1996 Saddam made troop movements almost IDENTICAL to his invasion of Kuwait, Clinton dispatched a massive show of force which put an end to that, maybe he should have taken Bush Sr.'s approach and done NOTHING, look what happened on his watch there under similar circumstances. Clinton also worked behind the scenes to have OBL brought here for trial, when that didn't work he tried to have him killed, too bad he just missed. Yes that was the same attack the GOP claims was "wagging the dog" in an attempt to draw attention away from his "impeachment". Immediately following this miscarriage of our govt, Clinton was given a standing ovation by EVERY member of the UN in a show of support.
The attempts of the right wing to discredit everything he accomplished is a joke and is nothing more than indicative of their inability to provide evidence their party has accomplished nearly as much in recent history.
Here's another good one, Clinton killed the military, he gutted it completely, looked pretty good to me in Iraq....
Maybe he modernized and downsized because the advances in technology allowed him to do so?
did clinton commit forces to stop the genocide in rwanda ? not to place all the blame on clinton - there
are other more relevant and juicier targets
- as the sole political leader who failed to respond to the rwanda crisis, but fail he did. u.s. department officials were embroiled in a game of semantics trying to
spin the events on the ground so as to prevent direct u.s. military intervention.
pbs chronicle of us/un actions
pbs: triumph of evil
salon.com: still getting away with murder (march 1998)
But it is to other Arab countries, so how can we critisize them if they try to make a pre-emptive strike against Isreal? We set the precedent. Of course, the Israeli's could nuke them, there is no problem with them having WMD's, but if anyone else does, it's invasion time. Blatant double standards = hatred of the US. When will the right wingers who run this country learn?
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So let me guess compelling the leaders of factions in a pitched battle decades old to negotiate is too hard and too fast . . . but bombing a country into submission and then imposing a system of government is perfectly deliberate.
Contrary to popular belief . . . the US president is not the leader of the free world. He leads a country which believes it has all the right answers to every question that's ever been asked or ever will be asked . . . and if you doubt it . . . we don't care. Clinton was indeed overly enamored with his popularity and certainly was a 3rd string leader at best. In Somalia, you can blame Clinton for mission creep but GHW Bush commited US troops to the region NOT Clinton. He pulled US troops out b/c he correctly ascertained that the typical American doesn't give a shyte about Somalia then or now. It was the wrong choice morally but Clinton wasn't the first or most recent US president with a warped sense of propriety.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? It is widely acknowledged that Clinton killed any chance for a peace settlement by pushing both parties to accept an agreement that neither they nor their citizens could accept at that time. What does that have to do with Bush and Iraq anyway? Clinton's screwup in the middle east is what it is, regardless of what Bush had done.
Bush committed the troops, and probably had a good idea of what he wanted to do there, Clinton kept them there for over a year without any clear plan. It doesn't matter that Bush sent them there, Clinton kept them there, he could've brought them back earlier if he believed it was a bad idea. Again, Bush's actions do not change the judgment of Clinton's.
He pulled US troops out because he was a spineless coward who would rather spit on the graves of 18 dead servicemen then risk losing a couple points in the popularity polls. We should've been out right away, or we should've stayed to finish the job, he made the worst possible decision when judged by any standard other than the effect on his popularity.
Oh my, first of all Clinton got them to the table, nobody else. Show me this "widely acknowledged" belief that proves otherwise.
Second of all Clinton followed Powell's plan in Somalia to the bitter end, blame the man who made the horrendous plan.
Remember in the election when Bush criticized Clinton for using troops in nation building? He said he would bring them home from Bosnia, where are they then? Still there. Blame him for that, he has full control and has publicly stated his feelings on this issue.
As far as Clinton's foreign policy, he brought Israel-PLO to the table, the IRA and Uk, he returned a democratically elected leader in Haiti (the UN is currently fvcking everything up there AS USUAL), he committed forces to stop genocide in Bosnia and built international support for this cause. In 1996 Saddam made troop movements almost IDENTICAL to his invasion of Kuwait, Clinton dispatched a massive show of force which put an end to that, maybe he should have taken Bush Sr.'s approach and done NOTHING, look what happened on his watch there under similar circumstances. Clinton also worked behind the scenes to have OBL brought here for trial, when that didn't work he tried to have him killed, too bad he just missed. Yes that was the same attack the GOP claims was "wagging the dog" in an attempt to draw attention away from his "impeachment". Immediately following this miscarriage of our govt, Clinton was given a standing ovation by EVERY member of the UN in a show of support.
The attempts of the right wing to discredit everything he accomplished is a joke and is nothing more than indicative of their inability to provide evidence their party has accomplished nearly as much in recent history.
Here's another good one, Clinton killed the military, he gutted it completely, looked pretty good to me in Iraq....
Maybe he modernized and downsized because the advances in technology allowed him to do so?
Wow, got them to the peace table. Good job Clinton! And hear I was thinking actually accomplishing something might be the important thing to do, but apparently just getting them to the table-somewhere they'd been several times before-is all you need to do. Oh yeah, I forgot, he also managed to push out of office the most dovish PM Israel had ever had, and probably will ever have again, killing any realistic chance to get Israel to make significant concessions in the near future. Here's a quote for you:
"What had not been expected by the advocates of the comprehensive approach was the enormous sense of urgency with which Barak and Clinton pushed the process. In Sept. '99, at a Summit..., they committed themselves to a one-year deadline for a final peace treaty, and in July 2000, they scheduled a period OF JUST ONE WEEK in which to complete the negotiations at Camp David-despite the fact that there had been very little detailed exploration beforehand and despite Arafat's repeated warnings that he was not ready.
These deadlines WERE COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC, EVEN DELUSIONAL...It proved to be an extraordinary miscalculation calculation....The tight deadlines and, paradoxically, the scope of Israeli proposals made the incompatibility of the two sides' definitions of the concept of peace evident and unbridgable."
Henry Kissinger, Does America need a Foreign Policy? Now you can go out and try and find a quote from someone of Kissinger's stature saying Clinton did a great job in the Mideast and didn't screw everything up.
Find me a source saying Clinton did exactly what Powell said to in Somalia, that it was his idea to pull out and free the prisoner's we'd taken after that incident. Also find me a line of reasoning that in anyway removes the responsibility for those actions from the commander in chief, regardless of whose advise he was taking.
What relevance to Bush's actions have? Obviously the situation has changed post 9/11, and what the government and the citizens of the US feel is necessary to protect us has changed from what it was before.
How was Clinton responsible for the agreements in Ireland? The hell, you're putting Haiti as a success? Let's see, Clinton broke a major campaign promise that he had bashed Bush on, he dicked around for 2 years while economic conditions in Haiti became catastrophic and murders and attacks increased. Played the fun game of issuing a million ultimatums and declarations and acting suprised when they didn't work. 2 years of playing the fool and then finally getting a ruthless dicatorship out of power and showing other dictators around the world how easy it was to string around the US and hold on to power, and hey, if you finally did lose power, there weren't any real consequences anyway. If you have to reach this low in the barrel to find a success, it shows the true shittiness of Clinton's foreign policy.
I can't believe you're giving Clinton credit for Bosnia too. Europe was much more concerned with the area than Clinton was, and needed no convincing that there was a problem. Genocide was going on for years before anyone did anything about it anyway. Don't pretend he made some heroic stand to stop genocide, he did his same wishy washy crap there too. Made a half assed military commitment, never explained what the hell we were doing there or why. Again, this is pretty poor excuse for a success, and its just sad you have to find things like this to justify his foreign policy.
Yeah great job he did with OBL, he's sitting in prison right now isn't he? No? Well he at least damaged his organization and hampered his ability to hurt the US? What, he didnt'? He just let OBL run off to a nation that would allow and even help him to train his own terrorist army? He would then do absolutely nothing? Try to have him killed? Are you talking about that piss poor cruise missile attack? Great job there. Well, at least he tried. Great job, I'd rank this right up there with "getting them to the table." An amazing accomplishment, truly.
Of course the military had no trouble with Iraq. Their military was a joke, no one seriously doubted we would have trouble with them. But there is no way of knowing how we would've done if Clinton had not done what he had done. Maybe we would've had more troops to protect our supply lines, and could've saved the lives of those rear echelon troopers. Maybe we wouldn't have had so many supply problems and could've won the war faster. There is no way to judge Clinton's effect on the military by the war in Iraq, so don't bother going there.
And Bush did increase military spending when he got into office, so we've got 2 years of the Bush military improving on what Clinton did to it, if you still feel like playing that game.
Israel isn't a threat to anyone. They're not going to attack and only want to defend themselves. The arabs aren't afraid of Israel attacking them, they're afraid of Israel fighting back when they try to push them into the sea and wipe them out. Israel having WMD prevents an attack from happening. Arab nations having WMD does not prevent an attack from happening. Iraq's possession of them would facilitate an attack on neighbouring oil producing nations, possibly even Israel to win support from Arab nations it wasn't currently attacing.
Israel isn't a threat to anyone. They're not going to attack and only want to defend themselves.
--------------------
I take it you're not Palestinian.
--------------------
I take it you're not Palestinian.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Quote by Helenihi
Israel isn't a threat to anyone. They're not going to attack and only want to defend themselves. The arabs aren't afraid of Israel attacking them, they're afraid of Israel fighting back when they try to push them into the sea and wipe them out. Israel having WMD prevents an attack from happening. Arab nations having WMD does not prevent an attack from happening. Iraq's possession of them would facilitate an attack on neighbouring oil producing nations, possibly even Israel to win support from Arab nations it wasn't currently attacing.[/quote]
If you consider all residents of Israel Israeli I would agree. I suspect the Palestinians view it a bit differn'tly.
Israel isn't a threat to anyone. They're not going to attack and only want to defend themselves. The arabs aren't afraid of Israel attacking them, they're afraid of Israel fighting back when they try to push them into the sea and wipe them out. Israel having WMD prevents an attack from happening. Arab nations having WMD does not prevent an attack from happening. Iraq's possession of them would facilitate an attack on neighbouring oil producing nations, possibly even Israel to win support from Arab nations it wasn't currently attacing.[/quote]
If you consider all residents of Israel Israeli I would agree. I suspect the Palestinians view it a bit differn'tly.
If you consider all residents of Israel Israeli I would agree. I suspect the Palestinians view it a bit differn'tly.[/quote]
Exactly, do you honestly beleive that if Israel could get away with "solving" their "Palestinian Problem" they would hesitate for a second?
yes, assuming you were asking an honest question. even if we were to entertain such a ludicrous what-if, the problems it
would create would quickly eclipse the problem it would seek to 'solve'.
Please, If Israel's blatant disregard for civilans killed during its assasination strikes are any example, if the continued expansion of settlements, of roads designated "Jew only" chris crossing and cutting up Palestinian land into cantons are any proof, how can you honestly claim the Isrealis would think twice of completely getting rid of the Palestinians if they could get away with it? This of course is a two way road, there are many Palestinians who would love to get rid of Israel if they could, but don't deny the undeniable.
Exactly, do you honestly beleive that if Israel could get away with "solving" their "Palestinian Problem" they would hesitate for a second?[/quote]
And of course you have some evidence to back this up. Oh wait, you don't, other than your knowledge that jews are nazis and want to kill all Palestinians.
Since there are hundreds of thousands of Arab Israelis enjoying the full benefits of Israeli citizenship, and Israel has had several opportunities to "solve" the problem and did not take them, and it has already made a committment to a palestinian state, and gave massive concessions at camp david that were completely unmatched by Arafat, I'd say they have no desire to wipe them out.
But you keep being a bigot if it makes you happy.
Blatant disregard? Israel has always taken care to minimize civilian casualties. Just because they have no completely stopped military actions when their was a risk of harm does not mean they didn't care. The 20 dead IDF soldiers who went into Jenin to check house by house rather than simply leveling the place with tanks or bombs prove you for the lying sack of sh1t you are. How much regard to palestinian suicide bombers give Israel civilians?
Hey guys remind me again, in 1948 who went to war to prevent the existence of Israel and Palestine? Who had no problem with the existence of a Palestinian state? Who completely occupied Palestinian lands for 20 years without giving them half the rights Israel did?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
And of course you have some evidence to back this up. Oh wait, you don't, other than your knowledge that jews are nazis and want to kill all Palestinians.
Since there are hundreds of thousands of Arab Israelis enjoying the full benefits of Israeli citizenship, and Israel has had several opportunities to "solve" the problem and did not take them, and it has already made a committment to a palestinian state, and gave massive concessions at camp david that were completely unmatched by Arafat, I'd say they have no desire to wipe them out.
But you keep being a bigot if it makes you happy.[/quote]
The State of Israel is made up of lots of folks who share a common religion along with the odd Catholic, Muslim, Hindu etc. They came from around the world to live in "their" country as citizens. There are others living in areas within and beyond the original borders of Israel in what is now considered Israel.. who are not "citizens" of Israel and as such seek a state of their own... Palestine... where citizens of Palestine live. The government of Israel seems not too enamored with this concept although they at times recognized this concept a viable solution to the tension within its borders but, as they have said... that does not remedy the major issue between the muslim and jew it only puts the muslim in a more strategic position.
But then, maybe this Iraq issue will ease their stress level and reach out and normalize.. peut etre
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter