Seperation of Church and State

[Guest bob_barron]

Few things:

 

1) The status of Osama bin Laden is very up in the air. He could have died at Tora Bora and was secretly buried. He could have escaped and is hiding out somewhere in the Middle East. Save for a sketchy audio tape, there really is no proof. But, IMO, it seems odd that we haven't seen a video of bin Laden taunting the US, since that would certainly make Bush look bad and really fire up the other terriorist groups, since they could say "All that military might toppling a weak country and the guy you are looking for is alive and well, ha ha ha."

 

2) Clinton launched some cruise missiles at some terrorist camps (one which hit the Chinese embassy in Sudan (I think), making them a little cheesed off). That seems like a half-assed "answer" to two embassies being destroyed.

 

3) I don't get the reasoning that "we shouldn't go after Saddam since he poses no threat" when Clinton authorized US forces to go to Bosnia to fight Slobodan Milosevic, a dictator which posed even LESS of a threat to the US, and no one seemed to mind.

 

Eh, my $.02.

I think the Chinese embassy hit was during the bombings of Serbia Kingpk although I'm not too sure.

 

And when Al Franken calls you on things then that's pretty sad

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

3) I don't get the reasoning that "we shouldn't go after Saddam since he poses no threat" when Clinton authorized US forces to go to Bosnia to fight Slobodan Milosevic, a dictator which posed even LESS of a threat to the US, and no one seemed to mind.

That was a situation of genocide. An entire race of people was being slaughtered.

 

Don't even try to say it wasn't justified; if so, we had no business going into WW2

[Guest Ace309]

I googled a bit for Goldberg's Bias and found plenty of reviews and criticisms, but couldn't find any in which they even mentioned that he accused the media of inventing or fabricating news stories.

 

If I wasn't thorough enough, provide me with a cite.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Clinton launched some cruise missiles at some terrorist camps (one which hit the Chinese embassy in Sudan (I think), making them a little cheesed off).

The Chinese embassy incident was in Belgrade during the US/Serbian dispute, not in Sudan. Sudan included the 'pharmacy'

 

That seems like a half-assed "answer" to two embassies being destroyed.

 

It's not like he had much room to do anything else. Remember that his response was supposedly distracting people from Monica and not responding to Osama. Remember, at that time, it seemed that the bigger problem in the US was Clinton having an affair, not International terrorists plotting to blow up stuff.

 

I don't get the reasoning that "we shouldn't go after Saddam since he poses no threat" when Clinton authorized US forces to go to Bosnia to fight Slobodan Milosevic

 

First, Clinton never sent in any ground troops

 

Second, the conflict was in Kosovo (or as B1 Bob Dornan calls it Ko-sah-vo or whatever)

 

Third, I don't recall any US troops dying in the air campaign

 

a dictator which posed even LESS of a threat to the US

 

Although I heard that the people in Kosovo weren't fond of him.

 

and no one seemed to mind.

 

Although afterwords, the revised history is that the Kosovo fighters were all Al-Qaida terrorists, Slobodan wasn't that bad, Clinton was a war criminal and the Serbians were a-OK

 

EDIT- POST NOW MORE BETTER, WHOO!

 

That was a situation of genocide. An entire race of people was being slaughtered.

 

Don't even try to say it wasn't justified; if so, we had no business going into WW2

 

Historical note: Germany declared war on the United States. If they didn't do that, who knows how long we would have kept our noses out of Europe. Also, I don't think that ending genocide was really the motivation. The motivation was 'crushing Hitler'. It just turns out that the camps were discovered after the war was over.

 

Remember, it's THEIR problem if they wanna kill each other, if you believe some people.

[Guest Kingpk]

That was a situation of genocide. An entire race of people was being slaughtered.

Saddam routinely persecutes the Shiite and Kurdish populations of Iraq. Sure, it's not genocide, but that's the next step. If they keep trying to overthrow him, who knows what he'll do?

 

Rob - Ok, so I muffed a few facts. That's why I don't frequent this folder much.

[Atlas 0]

I was written by a guy who was in the business for 20+ years. Come on.

 

--Rob

In the businiess of knowing how to sell propaganda and doing a poor job of making it look factual?

[Guest RobJohnstone]

3) I don't get the reasoning that "we shouldn't go after Saddam since he poses no threat" when Clinton authorized US forces to go to Bosnia to fight Slobodan Milosevic, a dictator which posed even LESS of a threat to the US, and no one seemed to mind.

That was a situation of genocide. An entire race of people was being slaughtered.

 

Don't even try to say it wasn't justified; if so, we had no business going into WW2

Yes, so we should go to war because of some conflict in some third world country. Why may I ask? Also I forgot about pearl harbor, isn't that why we went in wwII?

 

Thanks

 

--Rob

[Guest RobJohnstone]

"Remember, it's THEIR problem if they wanna kill each other"

 

Indeed

 

--Rob

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Agreed, I know the history of WWII. However, we attacked Germany in much broader a scale than Japan after Pearl Harbor.

 

And yes, the camps were found mostly after the war.

 

Thanks for calling me on that, I was being more inflammatory than anything.

 

However, as for RJS... *sigh*

 

Going to war?

 

We bombed them. UN sent in troops. Game over. Not a war.

[Guest Powerplay]

3) I don't get the reasoning that "we shouldn't go after Saddam since he poses no threat" when Clinton authorized US forces to go to Bosnia to fight Slobodan Milosevic, a dictator which posed even LESS of a threat to the US, and no one seemed to mind.

That was a situation of genocide. An entire race of people was being slaughtered.

 

Don't even try to say it wasn't justified; if so, we had no business going into WW2

Yes, so we should go to war because of some conflict in some third world country. Why may I ask? Also I forgot about pearl harbor, isn't that why we went in wwII?

 

Thanks

 

--Rob

Afterwards, we find that the Holocaust was also a good justification of going into WWII. Oh, but being the upstanding Buchanan supporter you are, you don't believe in the Holocaust, correct?

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Agreed, I know the history of WWII. However, we attacked Germany in much broader a scale than Japan after Pearl Harbor.

 

And yes, the camps were found mostly after the war.

 

Thanks for calling me on that, I was being more inflammatory than anything.

 

However, as for RJS... *sigh*

 

Going to war?

 

We bombed them. UN sent in troops. Game over. Not a war.

We bomb someone, it is just as bad as going to war. You think the missles and shit we bomb them with do not cost money? Who's money you ask? My money, your money, our money.

 

--Rob

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

K, withdrawal all the troops from Iraq then.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I would have found out who did it which they did, and then send the mil;itary to take them out without going through UN sanctions and bullshit like that. Simple enough

 

--Rob

Okay. So the CIA finds out that Al Qaeda is responsible. Since Bin Laden has his hand in the Taliban's pocket, you go before Congress to declare your intentions and ask for a decleration of war. Congress doesn't want to shake up the world community and refuses to grant a declaration until you take these steps that you don't like (such as UN Sanctions)

 

See, when it was just an Embassy here or there, Clinton couldn't get Congress to let him go all out against the Taliban. When they went and killed 3,000 unarmed citizens, THEN Congress decide to send every goddamn thing we have over there and make them pay.

 

Because of Congress, the whole Bin-Laden situation makes Clinton look bad and Bush look like some kind of war hero.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

3) I don't get the reasoning that "we shouldn't go after Saddam since he poses no threat" when Clinton authorized US forces to go to Bosnia to fight Slobodan Milosevic, a dictator which posed even LESS of a threat to the US, and no one seemed to mind.

That was a situation of genocide. An entire race of people was being slaughtered.

 

Don't even try to say it wasn't justified; if so, we had no business going into WW2

Yes, so we should go to war because of some conflict in some third world country. Why may I ask? Also I forgot about pearl harbor, isn't that why we went in wwII?

 

Thanks

 

--Rob

Afterwards, we find that the Holocaust was also a good justification of going into WWII. Oh, but being the upstanding Buchanan supporter you are, you don't believe in the Holocaust, correct?

We still do not know everything that happened in the holocaust. First the russians told us 4 million died. In 1989 they changed their minds and said it was closer to 1.1 million. Lot's of propaganda was used and even people that were there believe it. In Dachau most troops who liberated it said they saw the poisen shower rooms but, the evidence says there were no such thing in the Dachau camp. Also most people would agree it was a mostly jewish experience at the holocaust but, what about the polish, and the gypsies? You should check out a series of tapes that David Cole made. He is a former jew, now athiest who did alot of reasearch on this.

 

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p-99_Aynat.html

 

None of these camps are in original condition and would you explain to me how the killing chamber in auschwitz was right next door to the SS dining hall for the nazi's?

 

I tend to belive that 1.1 million died due to bad hygene conditions causing scurvy and all other crazy illness's from back then. Also it is a fact that 95% of the Zyclon B was used to delouse clothes and such.

 

--Rob

[Guest JMA]

And when Al Franken calls you on things then that's pretty sad

Not as sad as when O'Reilly calls you on things.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

K, withdrawal all the troops from Iraq then.

We cannot, they singed the treaty to disarm in 91 or 92. We have to finish the job because of that treaty. ALthough we should have never gone to war in the first place with them.

 

--Rob

[Guest Powerplay]

3) I don't get the reasoning that "we shouldn't go after Saddam since he poses no threat" when Clinton authorized US forces to go to Bosnia to fight Slobodan Milosevic, a dictator which posed even LESS of a threat to the US, and no one seemed to mind.

That was a situation of genocide. An entire race of people was being slaughtered.

 

Don't even try to say it wasn't justified; if so, we had no business going into WW2

Yes, so we should go to war because of some conflict in some third world country. Why may I ask? Also I forgot about pearl harbor, isn't that why we went in wwII?

 

Thanks

 

--Rob

Afterwards, we find that the Holocaust was also a good justification of going into WWII. Oh, but being the upstanding Buchanan supporter you are, you don't believe in the Holocaust, correct?

We still do not know everything that happened in the holocaust. First the russians told us 4 million died. In 1989 they changed their minds and said it was closer to 1.1 million. Lot's of propaganda was used and even people that were there believe it. In Dachau most troops who liberated it said they saw the poisen shower rooms but, the evidence says there were no such thing in the Dachau camp. Also most people would agree it was a mostly jewish experience at the holocaust but, what about the polish, and the gypsies? You should check out a series of tapes that David Cole made. He is a former jew, now athiest who did alot of reasearch on this.

 

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p-99_Aynat.html

 

None of these camps are in original condition and would you explain to me how the killing chamber in auschwitz was right next door to the SS dining hall for the nazi's?

 

I tend to belive that 1.1 million died due to bad hygene conditions causing scurvy and all other crazy illness's from back then. Also it is a fact that 95% of the Zyclon B was used to delouse clothes and such.

 

--Rob

So what happened to the 6 million Jews who were gone after the war? Are they hiding? And if so, do you perhaps know where they were hiding?

[Guest RobJohnstone]

I would have found out who did it which they did, and then send the mil;itary to take them out without going through UN sanctions and bullshit like that.  Simple enough

 

--Rob

Okay. So the CIA finds out that Al Qaeda is responsible. Since Bin Laden has his hand in the Taliban's pocket, you go before Congress to declare your intentions and ask for a decleration of war. Congress doesn't want to shake up the world community and refuses to grant a declaration until you take these steps that you don't like (such as UN Sanctions)

 

See, when it was just an Embassy here or there, Clinton couldn't get Congress to let him go all out against the Taliban. When they went and killed 3,000 unarmed citizens, THEN Congress decide to send every goddamn thing we have over there and make them pay.

 

Because of Congress, the whole Bin-Laden situation makes Clinton look bad and Bush look like some kind of war hero.

He obviously didn't do much to convince them like bush did. Bush made a speach to america about it. Clinton was probably getting head.

 

--Rob

[Guest RobJohnstone]

3) I don't get the reasoning that "we shouldn't go after Saddam since he poses no threat" when Clinton authorized US forces to go to Bosnia to fight Slobodan Milosevic, a dictator which posed even LESS of a threat to the US, and no one seemed to mind.

That was a situation of genocide. An entire race of people was being slaughtered.

 

Don't even try to say it wasn't justified; if so, we had no business going into WW2

Yes, so we should go to war because of some conflict in some third world country. Why may I ask? Also I forgot about pearl harbor, isn't that why we went in wwII?

 

Thanks

 

--Rob

Afterwards, we find that the Holocaust was also a good justification of going into WWII. Oh, but being the upstanding Buchanan supporter you are, you don't believe in the Holocaust, correct?

We still do not know everything that happened in the holocaust. First the russians told us 4 million died. In 1989 they changed their minds and said it was closer to 1.1 million. Lot's of propaganda was used and even people that were there believe it. In Dachau most troops who liberated it said they saw the poisen shower rooms but, the evidence says there were no such thing in the Dachau camp. Also most people would agree it was a mostly jewish experience at the holocaust but, what about the polish, and the gypsies? You should check out a series of tapes that David Cole made. He is a former jew, now athiest who did alot of reasearch on this.

 

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p-99_Aynat.html

 

None of these camps are in original condition and would you explain to me how the killing chamber in auschwitz was right next door to the SS dining hall for the nazi's?

 

I tend to belive that 1.1 million died due to bad hygene conditions causing scurvy and all other crazy illness's from back then. Also it is a fact that 95% of the Zyclon B was used to delouse clothes and such.

 

--Rob

So what happened to the 6 million Jews who were gone after the war? Are they hiding? And if so, do you perhaps know where they were hiding?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-...million-01.html

 

--Rob

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh yes, he made a speech to America. THAT'S why we went to war, not because of September 11th...

 

*sigh*

[Guest Ace309]

Bush DID also have the advantage that there was an obvious attack on American soil that Americans were experiencing.

 

While I'm not denying the scope of the embassy attacks and the USS Cole, it was hard for a lot of Americans to conceptualize that, and thus it was hard for them to back any action against it.

[Guest JMA]

He obviously didn't do much to convince them like bush did. Bush made a speach to america about it. Clinton was probably getting head.

 

--Rob

Nah, he was probably getting faced. You know how much he likes his booze. Or he could have just been snorting some crack. The only one who is getting head now is Richard "Dick" Cheney--from Ann Coulter.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Bush DID also have the advantage that there was an obvious attack on American soil that Americans were experiencing.

 

While I'm not denying the scope of the embassy attacks and the USS Cole, it was hard for a lot of Americans to conceptualize that, and thus it was hard for them to back any action against it.

Then he should have convinced then. He could of atleast, minimum addressed the nation about that. we had something like 14 of our people die.

 

--Rob

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I will note that when I saw the link from the Institute for Historical Review, I just shook my head. You do know that is a 'revisionist' site, right?

 

Gee Rob.. you're not making yourself look any better, why don't you say that Hitler and Goebbels were right when they said that Roosevelt and Stalin were wanting to take over Europe for Communism and Jewish people also.

 

*rolls his eyes*

[Guest RobJohnstone]

WHat is wrong with revisionist history? Some of it is true. Why not acually read the site, then comment. BTW we had no business going to germany during wwII even if they did declare war. Hitler was obviously an idiot fascist but, does that give us the right to fight him even if he was killing people? NO

 

--Rob

[Guest Ace309]

Rob, there's only so much even the most skilled orator can do to convince people to back a cause they don't understand, particularly since most of the American public probably sees 14 people as insignificant (incorrectly).

 

OTOH, seeing footage of the World Trade Center collapsing makes Bush's point for him, saving him from having to attempt to make a competent speech.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

He obviously didn't do much to convince them like bush did. Bush made a speach to america about it. Clinton was probably getting head.

Clinton didn't get the edge of being able to talk to them while the twin towers were still smoldering and body parts were being pulled out of the building.

 

Attack on an embassy? Anti-American Faction

Bomb on a boat? Anti-American Faction.

Largest attack on our country in it's 200+ year history? Whoa, hold the phone! That Anti-American Faction is upgraded to International Terror Network.

 

Congress did not take Al-Qaeda seriously. It had nothing to do with who was President. Bush had to practically sell the War on Terror like a traveling salesman to the country. If Congress have given Clinton the full might of the military, a war in Afghanistan probably wouldn't have been met with as much resistance. Even you have to admit Clinton has a way of making the common centrist voter believe him more than Bush does (and yes, I know Clinton lies a lot. All politicians do. They're notorious for it.)

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Rob, there's only so much even the most skilled orator can do to convince people to back a cause they don't understand, particularly since most of the American public probably sees 14 people as insignificant (incorrectly).

 

OTOH, seeing footage of the World Trade Center collapsing makes Bush's point for him, saving him from having to attempt to make a competent speech.

Ace but he did not even address the nation. He did the least possible action he could do. On top of all the bullshit he did wrong in this country, which I listed in other threads.

 

--Rob

[Guest Powerplay]

Bush DID also have the advantage that there was an obvious attack on American soil that Americans were experiencing.

 

While I'm not denying the scope of the embassy attacks and the USS Cole, it was hard for a lot of Americans to conceptualize that, and thus it was hard for them to back any action against it.

Then he should have convinced then. He could of atleast, minimum addressed the nation about that. we had something like 14 of our people die.

 

--Rob

Wow. Yes. I'm sure that if had spoken on 14 people dying, the people would have believed he wasn't trying to wag the dog. When Bush made his speech, 3,000 people had just died in the most horrific attack on the U.S. ever. Bush, of course, had far more leverage.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Bush DID also have the advantage that there was an obvious attack on American soil that Americans were experiencing.

 

While I'm not denying the scope of the embassy attacks and the USS Cole, it was hard for a lot of Americans to conceptualize that, and thus it was hard for them to back any action against it.

Then he should have convinced then. He could of atleast, minimum addressed the nation about that. we had something like 14 of our people die.

 

--Rob

Look at the scope, you tool.

 

If he had given a speech, trying to ask America to go to war... the media and congress would have blasted him for trying to dodge the Monica issue.

 

So, instead of capturing bin Laden, we get...

 

"OMGZORZ!! CLINTIN N MONIKA!!! IMPEECH!!!"

 

Funny how you conveniently forget history.