One question I have is that whenever someone criticizes Bush, why do people bring up examples of Clinton?? I think that we as educated people can cross party lines and look at actions instead of assumming its just partisan dribble. I personally detested Clinton and voted for Bush, but I am now questioning Bush's foreign policy actions. Either way, if Colin Powell runs for president, democrat or republican or libertarian, he gets my big fat Vote!
I didn't bring up Clinton because of party lines, I orignally brought him up to show what happens when you attempt containment and do nothing. To me it would have been the same as saying "The Previous Administration." I for one think that Bush Sr. could have done more (I know it was not the mission at the time) to oust Sadam. I am a Republican, and proud of it, but I don't just think along Party lines. Hell, I like Lieberman.
posted by MadMax The same guilt Bush senior must feel for funding and training the Taliban during their conflict with the artist formally known as the Soviet Union. Gasoline for the Fire
Read your history before you make such a stupid remark. We knew OBL was a terrorist trying to attack the US. He had already carried out one such attack on the WTC, as well as blowing up two US Embassies. We had the chance to get him and we didn't. As far as training the Taliban to fight the Russians, at the time the Russians were the threat, not the Taliban. The situation is defined by the threat, once again hindsight is 20/20. Today, Iraq is the threat, and will be dealt with accordingly. If 20 years from now Kuwait becomes a threat against the US, I wouldn't look back and say, "Oh well, we liberated them so it's our fault." The issue is knowing something is a threat and not doing anything about it, not who we helped in the past in the name of national security.
What? First off, don't call me stupid. What I said was true and I have read up history. Second, your really whining and getting defensive. Did you see the smile in my post? It was a joke that refers to MadMax's statement. Arguing about this is a no-win situation because everyone has different opinions but when you start calling people names, well thats r****ded.
I didn't call you stupid, I hardly know you. I said your remark was a stupid remark cause it didn't make sense in my mind. Just because I think your remark was stupid, doesn't mean I think you are stupid.
reading a posts like this worry me , its all about ur interest n ur life over any others, so its ok all the other innocent have to die so u feel safe , u can sleep better when others cant, can it be jsut becuz americans are too paranoid , just becuz 911event it changes ur principle n your conscience?! so just becuz u suspect that he maybe a threat lets take him out first so u feel safe!!! do u realize in order for u to feel safe this way u have to kill every possible enemies. strike first becuz u feel threaten will only make the problem worse n creat more enemies . and a evil leader may abuse it! how many iraqis will need to die is enough that to tell u war is not necessary?!! or u just dunt care as long as u feel safer that saddam is dead... whos next..!!!???
Most booms and busts in the economey are predicted. So regardless of the president, Bush, Clinton or Gore, they would have had their hands full. The economy doesn't bust over night ... there are always signs of the fall. Sure, a president can help or help a recession or depression. IMO, i don't think Bush is doing too bad of a job.
We prefer to attack during a moonless period; we own the night, and the darker the better. The next one will be around March 2 or 3... I'm inclined to think that we'll catch the next (not upcoming) moonless period. That way the next round of UN diplomatic garbage (as it has become) will have passed, our/Britian's UN resolution will have been trashed by the Saddampathizers, and most importantly - all of the troops will be in place and acclimated by then. We will still have a 2-3 week opportunity to beat the really murderous heat of the desert with that launch date, and as that is probably as long as the war will last - even shorter, in all likelihood - then... It will also be our last good opportunity before the stifling heat puts some real complications into the equation (MOPP gear is extremely hot and uncomfortable without searing desert heat). Of course, we could forego the low-light advantage and attack at any time. We could start the attack tomorrow. It is more important to beat the heat than to catch an ambient ride on a moonless night...
You know, I haven't really put much thought into how long the war would last, but I think it may be longer than 2-3 weeks. I think the Iraqi army will fall in that time, but I think you'll see a lot of what is happening in Afghanastan right now. Pockets of resitence fighting every couple of days. I hope we can take Baghdad quickly, that way we can bring in relief efforts. Despite what has been referred to in a previous post, I do not think our lives are more important than those of the Iraqi people, however I do think their leadership must go.
For the conservatives out there who criticize Clinton for not taking out bin Laden, I must've been in a coma for all those years that y'all were apparently screaming to take him out.
I never made the case that conservatives were screaming to take him out. It's not a politcal issue, it hindsight, which is what I have been saying this entire time. We as a country had a chance and we didnt' take it, we learned from that mistake, and thus should not make the same on with Sadam. I don't blame Clinton personally, or the Democrats. One of my previous posts makes reference to that. It's we made a mistake and now we should rectify it.
exactly... though i must say, i don't think the people who posted on this bulletin board are privy to the kind of intelligence Clinton was in regards to Al Qaeda and OBL. I'm betting less than 15% of the population before 9/11 even knew what Al Qaeda was. most thought it was a light chicken gravy.
