The President responsible for American military supremacy is

Good article.

What Al Franken found humorous was the cries from the right that Clinton had crippled the military when in fact he had just cut it down to more appropriate levels.

We wrecked Iraq with 3 divisions. The army has a total of 10 active combat divisions and the Marine Corps has 3. This war kind of proved that our military is doing fine and we don't need to spend more money on it while we're cutting social programs.

 

What a stupid proposition.

Has there ever been a time in the last 100 years when our military couldn't display its superiority over Iraq? Maybe instead of Clinton, we should give the credit to Silent Cal.

 

What's stupid about it?

I'm think I'm in a better position than you to comment on what the military does, and does not, need. Terrorism is low tech, and is a very poor explanation for adding to a military budget that is already very generous. At the same time we're supposed to applaud when education gets thrown a 100 million dollar bone.

I'm no peacenik, I'm just someone who believes that this country is regressing socially and culturally and I'd like to see that pattern change.

 

If there IS an answer to this question, I think it would have to be decided on how a President uses the millitary instead of how much money he spends on it.

Reagan - wins Cold War without really using it.
Bush#1 - liberates Kuwait but fails to oust sadaam in the aftermath.
Clinton - retreats from Somalia while dead US servicemen are dragged naked through the streets.
Dubbya - liberates Afganistan and Iraq.

 

Aren't you forgetting Kosovo?

 

Kosovo was a freaking disaster. NATO should have never participated.

We were not threatened by Milosovic, and NATO actually killed more Albanians in Kosovo than the Serbs did!

 

Sorry, I was unclear, and I wasn't addressing your post. I was talking about the proposition that Clinton should be given some credit for the victory in Iraq.

 

So we should have just let the genocide continue?

 

Did you even read the article? It never says that he "should" be given credit.

 

Europe should have taken care of the problem, in my opinion. They are more than capable of policing their back yard.

The Albanian Muslims were trying to take over Kosovo from the Serbs and start their own country, so they weren't exactly innocent in this matter either. We basically took sides in a civil war that didn't concern us. Remember, after NATO bombed the Serbs into surrender, the Muslims did a little minor ethnic cleansing of their own.

 

edit.

Hold on there Cowboy. Read the title of the article. That is a proposition.

 

Hrm, it seems odd to approve of protecting the Iraqi people through use of force but not to approve of protecting albanians and bosnians. Not a very humanitarian point of view.

I already know the arguments about terrorism playing a major role in the decisions to invade Iraq, but it was one of a couple of different primary reasons given over the course of the months preceding the invasion.

 

Well, you answered my question. You just read the title and that was it.

 

Wow, maybe you don't know the meaning of proposition.

Proposition- A plan suggested for acceptance; a proposal.

Now, I will go explain this slowly to you, so you can understand what I am saying (you will have to read slowly to get the effect).

I wrote- Sorry, I was unclear, and I wasn't addressing your post. I was talking about the proposition that Clinton should be given some credit for the victory in Iraq.

OK, look at the meaning of proposition, and then quickly look at the title of the article, which is-

Should Clinton share the credit for victory in Iraq?

See? The author, in the title of the article, advances the proposition that perhaps Clinton should be given some of the credit for the Iraq War.

You then answer back- Did you even read the article? It never says that he "should" be given credit.

Of course, I never said the article states that Clinton should be given credit, but that didn't really matter to you I guess.

After I point out that the title holds the very proposition in question, you state- Well, you answered my question. You just read the title and that was it.

LOL, you were dead wrong, and you still felt the need to be an a-hole. Good job!

 

Wow, I asked a question and instead of an answer I get a vocab lesson. The point of this thread is the article, not the title. Instead of discussing the article, you keep focusing on the title. I can't imagine why you choose to avoid it, but whatever.

Well, here's another definition for proposition.

the point to be discussed or maintained in argument usually stated in sentence form near the outset

So, did you just read the title and assume the author wanted you to accept the idea that Clinton deserves some credit? If you read the article, you would know that the author answers the question and the answer is basically no. So, it wasn't a "stupid" proposition because it never was a proposition, at least, not in the way that you chose to use the word. It was a question, kind of like a thesis. So, please read the article and join the the constructive discussion we are trying to have in here.

PS: thanks for calling me an a-hole, I know it makes you feel good.

 

You know what Oski, you have turned this into a stupid semantics argument.

I read the article. It is an argument that reflects on the proposition- should Clinton get credit for the recent Iraqi victory. I think the proposition is preposterous.

I am sorry this is so hard for you.

p.s. Sorry about the ahole remark. I thought you understood what I was saying, and were purposely giving me a hard time.

 

Hard for me? I asked you a simple question. I didn't turn it into a semantics argument, you are the one who wrote out definition first, not to mention the fact you basically insulted my intelligence with the "I'll explain it slowly so you can understand" crack. The only thing that's hard for me to understand is why I bother trying to have a discussion with somebody who resorts to personal insults instead of civil debate.

 

It's funny. How many times has a pro-Iraqi war person used this as an arguement only to be rebuffed with "what about Rwanda" etc...

It's also interesting to see people against GW2 argue for Kosovo. You have the same basic setup (a ruthless dictator who's busy murdering tons of innocent people), however, the Iraq war was far more legal than Kosovo simply because of Hussein's violation of the cease fire agreements and U.N. resolutions. Plus the fact that Hussein was, based on past actions, far more dangerous to the rest of the world then Millosovic was.

Personally I think both situations warrented intervention. I think Iraq was more "just" from a legal and moral perspective then Kosovo but that's just my opinion.

 

No Oski, you turned this discussion sour by insinuating that I hadn't read the article. Feel free to ignore my posts in the future, but don't pretend like your intention with me was "civil debate".