Clinton on Bush uranium line: 'Everybody makes mistakes'

relevance?

they started a war...we're talking about imperialism here. we're not talking about fair game in a war. that's a different topic for a different time, altogether. we didn't seek to acquire japan...they sought to "acquire" us. we defended ourselves...and our allies.

 

It is Fidel's link to Saddam and Al Qaeda that is worrisome. Oh wait, there isn't a link or not until Bush Admin fabricates one.

The reason that I brought up Cuba is that the Bush Admin has made Cuban rumblings of late.

 

My take is that Clinton is trying to suck up to the Republicans, so that historians will reflect on him and his presidency more favorable.

 

Not a different topic,

We felt an obligation to help them rebuild. You act like it was all out of the goodness of our hearts. Oh we were soooooo forgiving after burning their civilians' shadows into the ground. And the same with Germany, there was a strategic reason to help the rebuild, something having to do with the Cold War. I hope that explains the relevance.

 

i didn't mean to create that impression...but we did help them rebuild, ultimately...after they attacked us. there's not exactly a ton of historical precedent in that, pgabriel. not many powers, historically, have responded to that "obligation"...in short, they didn't feel so obliged. responding to an obligation is from the goodness of the heart, ultimately. believe me...there was not much sympathy in this country for the Japanese. not much at all. we can argue about whether or not it was the right decision some years later...but in 1945, after being attacked and losing so many men to the battles in the Pacific...the idea that we would help them rebuild was not universally received as a good idea.

here's the difference...you see the same act i do...but instead of attributing any bit of positivity or benevolence to it, you see an ulterior motive. in everything. i'm not waving my flag at every turn telling you everything the US has done has been great...slavery and the awful treatment of the native americans comes to mind....but i'm also not likely to see a sinister motive behind everything either.

 

Thank you for your moral condesending view of me, it is so Christian like. I know pointing out the obvious, like we had a strategic position in Germany is so negative, or helping a nation that we dropped atomic weapons on is negative but the hell with the facts. I will try to be more like you next time teacher. Thanks for the lesson.

Edit: and btw, what ulterior motive did I state about helping Japan rebuild?

And another thing, we weren't so benelovent after WWI, and what did that lead us to. WWII. So maybe I'm putting a negative spin on it, but if it weren't for the rise of Hitler, do you think we would have been so quick to help other nations rebuild. I'm not saying we shouldn't have helped them, or that helping them to prevent future ill-will is a bad thing. I just like to point out the facts.

 

i'm not trashing your morals one bit, pgabriel. not one bit. i just said you and i see the same events very differently. RM95 is a friend of mine, and we see events very differently. That doesn't mean I think you or him to be less of a person...not at all. Please don't read that in there, because that's not at all what I'm intending to say.

I did notice you just skipped over responding to the first paragraph of my post, though! If you want to be more like the "teacher," I'd advise you to respond!

don't take me that seriously, pgabriel. i'm too much of a goofball for that. and do me a favor, and don't turn my faith around against me in my face. i never claimed to be perfect. i'm not the God I worship. i'm merely the created..not the Creator. but i am truly sorry if my post gave you the idea i was being condescending.

 

That's your opinion and that's fine. However, my point is that you are arbitrarily drawing lines about what is and is not a legitimate coalition. First it was number of countries, but the numbers are relatively similar. Then it was 'only UN action is legitimate,' but many organizations/groups/coalitions take action, including military intervention, and are considered legitimate. Then it was 'they was bought,' but Gulf 1 countries were bought as well. Then its 'not enough countries with troops,' but many of the troops in Gulf 1 were bought (as in Egypt which made a significant commitment of troops). Japan, for example, committed troops to neither Gulf Wars, but their decision to join both Coalitions was seen as legitimizing. And there are more countries sending troops every week. For me, there is enough of a comparison. Would it have been BETTER if it was a UN action? Of course. Is it illegitimate because of that? No.

The wrong would have been him lying or deceiving the public, not invading Iraq.

I have always maintained that there was no connection between (convincing connection anyway) between Saddam and 9/11. However, there is convincing evidence Iraq was a State supporter of terrorism, and more importantly the intervention in Iraq was more a part of the overall Doctrine change that stemmed FROM 9/11.

As for which is a bigger threat, Saddam now or invaded...Saddam with nukes at some point in the future is a bigger threat than Saddam invaded now.

One other note is I've seen a few chuckles on the conservative/clinton connection. Let no one say I am one of those since I both supported Clinton overall (for instance his lie about having sex with Monica Lewinsky I thought was generally irrelevant except that I felt bad for his weakness) and didn't support Bush but Gore, and have rarely defended Bush himself.

 

I didn't directly respond to your first paragraph, but I would again point to the fact that we learned our lesson from WWI, about leaving broken countries to fend for themselves.

WWI changed everything

I shouldn't have taken your first response so seriously, but it did sound condesending.

 

fair enough...sorry again if it came off that way. that's really not how i intended it.

 

Which three cities were those again?

 

Two cities, sorry. Dosen't change my point.

 

Thanks for the quote, Peter.

 

Were you intentionally exaggerating to make your point more forceful and to sway opinion? Were you basically lying to us? Or did you misspeak? Or are you ignoring all those days in history class and so yourself are ignorant of the facts?

I don't know. Those conspiracy theorists among us would have to say that you were intentionally lying to us and therefore a.....a...bad person . No wonder the international community doesn't want you making any decisions on your own.

 

Or did you have an entire agency devoted to finding the truth and simply ignored it. We really want to know!

 

Yes, which is it! Enquiring minds want to know!

 

I will say there was one huge difference in the rebuilding of say Japan and Iraq. In Japan not one major contract for the rebuilding went to a U.S. company. Iraq so far has almost all of them going to U.S. companies.

 

When I have a whole staff to write my posts for me that point will be relevant. To suggest that the president misspoke in a speech that was prepared probably weeks in advance and had the input of several staff members is laughable.

 

Bill Clinton is free to say whatever he likes. I haven't heard him come out and support Bush... he just gave his opinion on what is a hot topic from his unique perspective. I wish he were still President, which is not the case with some Democrats I know... and only for his moral lapse and subsequent attempt to talk his way out of it. I know many more who could care less about his morals and grand jury testimony and who also wish he were still President.

I don't think I personally know one Democrat who prefers Bush. Quite the opposite. And I know many Independents who are scared as hell about Bush's policies at home and abroad. I even know a Canadian who still has a Texas accent you could slice with a knife who thinks Bush is dangerous. And he's obviously not MacBeth.

I'm just not that worked up about Bill giving his opinions. So sue me. On another note, I'm glad we're straight about the number of atomics we dropped on Japan.

I also wanted to point out that Japan came out of the immediate post-war period with a constituion that basically forbid much of a military at all. (coincidence?) They have also had, and continue to have, numerous American bases on their territory and roughly 50,000 of our guys and gals serving there. Another coincidence?

 

Deckard -- please...those are terms of surrender after surprise attacking another nation and then having their ass handed to them by said nation. the united states didn't seek war...we didn't seek conquest in 1941. the war was thrust upon us.

talk about revisionist history? i know that gets thrown about...but the idea that we went into WWII with imperialistic motivation is flat our ridiculous.