Question: If Bush leaves office with Iraq in mess

[Guest thebigjig]

Oh, we probably brought it on ourselves --- you know, by considering the possibility that the evil George Bush might be a Presidential candidate.  

                        -=Mike

I love that argument. As much as he went off the deep end since losing the election (NOTMYPRESIDENTLOL2000~!), it's amazing that liberals don't realize that the same shit would have happened, and would have been handled in the same way (Iraq invasion included) if Al Gore was president.

It might not have, honestly.

 

Clinton didn't show any backbone when a WARSHIP OF OURS got bombed.

 

And he was the TOUGH one of the duo.

-=Mike

Yes... and our Lord and Savior George W Bush made the bombing of the Cole his FIRST priority when coming into office three months after it occurred... going directly after the evil terrorist scum making the war on terror his FIRST priority as a newly selected president

[Vyce 0]

Yes, they did. Houses were blown up. Stores, musuems, places of work were blown up.

And I think you're LYING --- and going by your track record on reporting "atrocities" committed by the U.S, I'm likely correct.

-=Mike

Cut him some slack, Mike.

 

As he admitted recently in another thread, he doesn't need to provide facts to support his statements - they're just his OPINIONS, after all.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes... and our Lord and Savior George W Bush made the bombing of the Cole his FIRST priority when coming into office three months after it occurred...

Ah, so no retaliation for it is the fault of the administration that wasn't even elected when it occurred --- not the administration in power when it did occured.

 

Got it.

Funny I'd give the credit to the Iraqi people who had the balls to stand up for freedom when they knew they'd likely be murdered by terrorists, not Bush who's perfectly safe on another continent.

The people aren't doing SQUAT.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

then get out of their country.

[Guest MikeSC]

then get out of their country.

Quite frankly, I'd have few qualms about letting that place devolve into a hellhole of misery.

 

Just slaughter all of the terrorists first, then leave the sewage pit. Just make it clear that as long as oil flows, they'll never hear from us again --- since it's the only useful thing that otherwise useless boil on the ass of the Earth has.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

but you don't know who all is a terrorist and who isn't.

[Guest MikeSC]

but you don't know who all is a terrorist and who isn't.

If you are holding a gun and pointing it at an American, that's enough for me to say "Shoot the bastard".

-=Mike

...Heck, they all want to die for Allah --- we should simply set up the meeting a little quicker

[Guest thebigjig]

Yes... and our Lord and Savior George W Bush made the bombing of the Cole his FIRST priority when coming into office three months after it occurred...

Ah, so no retaliation for it is the fault of the administration that wasn't even elected when it occurred --- not the administration in power when it did occured.

 

Got it.

Funny I'd give the credit to the Iraqi people who had the balls to stand up for freedom when they knew they'd likely be murdered by terrorists, not Bush who's perfectly safe on another continent.

The people aren't doing SQUAT.

-=Mike

I'm placing the blame on BOTH adminstrations pal... which is something you failed to do. Clinton didnt go after the terrorists after they bombed the Cole (if you dont count freezing their assets and drawing up plans to counter strike) and Dubyah obviously didnt think it was a priority to do so when he inherited the office.

[Highland 0]

So, the Bush Administration should not have had to taken any action over the USS Cole bombing, because it happened outside of it's tenure, but the right still sees fit to blame the 9/11 attacks on Clinton.

 

I see.

 

As for the war in Iraq, I doubt that in 10-20 years, assuming it's a democracy, that we'll be criticising Bush for an "illegal" war. The toppling of a dictator like Saddam Hussein and the successful installment of democracy will more than outweigh most negative arguments concerning the campaign.

 

Now, is the war in Iraq a matter of revenge by G.W. Bush for their attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush? Is it merely another small part in the ever-growing War on Terror? Or is it merely economic in nature, namely "War for Oil"?

 

In the end I don't really think it matters. Bush has had his revenge, whether or not Saddam was a threat the the US or was involved in terrorist activities against American interests is a matter of conjecture.

Nor does it matter if economics is the true driving force behind the war in Iraq, we won't care about how it was done in 10-20 years, maybe even less time than that, if the efforts spent today make the region stable and above all, profitable.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

It won't work anyway. The middle east will never settle down and niether will Iraq

[Vyce 0]

Now, is the war in Iraq a matter of revenge by G.W. Bush for their attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush? Is it merely another small part in the ever-growing War on Terror? Or is it merely economic in nature, namely "War for Oil"?

 

I've always believed that the Bush adminstration waged war in Iraq for a particular reason, which has some connection to the War on Terror: they wanted to establish a democracy within the Middle East. The rationale behind this is two-fold: to create a government that would be "friendly" to us or at least one that, as a fellow democratic nation, would aid us in suppressing violent Muslim fundamentalism; and to encourage other Arab states to engage in regime change in their own governments, to establish Democratic governments there (specifically, Iran, which has had a strong pro-democracy movement going for quite some time now).

 

Iraq was chosen because a) it was doable, b) it had built-in economic resources (i.e. the oil) so that it would be able to sustain itself once the democracy was underway, and c) the world-at-large couldn't gripe too much about deposing a madman such as Hussein (well, they could - but their rhetoric would have to be muted, as it was and is today, to merely questioning the need for war not whether it was just to depose a tyrant like Saddam). I suppose you could also say that d), it is also something of a private victory for the U.S. to depose, humiliate, and then capture a man who tried to assassinate a president of ours.

 

[Personally, I always thought that the outright derision from liberals of that one particular issue - "He's just fighting this war for daddy! He just wants revenge cause Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr.! " - was rather childish and disgusting. While I don't believe at all that an entire war would be fought for such a motive, Saddam DID try to assassinate one of our commanders-in-chief - and that should be enough for ANY and EVERY American, at the least, to cheer for his removal from power.]

 

Of course, assuming my theory is correct, it's not exactly something you can sell to the American public or the U.N., which is why WMDs were given as the reason for going to war. (The difference between me and my more left-leaning colleagues is that I believe that the administration genuinely believed that the WMD intel was good - only to find out rather bitterly that it was not - rather than actually lying about the weapons.)

 

And of course, bad miscalculations have been made about Iraq thus far, primarily in a) the number of troops needed and b) preparing for the influx of foreign fighters and the terrorism by fundamentalists from within.

[Guest Cerebus]

but you don't know who all is a terrorist and who isn't.

If you are holding a gun and pointing it at an American, that's enough for me to say "Shoot the bastard".

-=Mike

...Heck, they all want to die for Allah --- we should simply set up the meeting a little quicker

Ok let's get one thing straight, not all of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were "terrorists." From the Taguba Report:

 

Currently, due to lack of adequate Iraqi facilities, Iraqi criminals (generally Iraqi-on-Iraqi crimes) are detained with security internees (generally Iraqi-on-Coalition offenses) and EPWs in the same facilities, though segregated in different cells/compounds

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Except, of course, that the WTC were attacked before --- in 1993.

 

And we had embassies bombed.

 

And a warship bombed.

 

But, hey, those were flukes too, huh?

So we should have gone after bin-Laden earlier? Fine.

 

That doesn't mean we should become interventionists in regional conflits that have been sparring on since before our era, exception for Israel-Palestine since it involves an ally (although to be honest, Israel has everything they need to wipe out the opposing side now anyway).

 

And if we feel they might, it's our job to make sure it doesn't happen. Tough crap for them. Don't give us a reason to feel threatened and you'll be all toasty. You don't see us threatening to invade France, do you?

 

Are you so dim that you don't see the problem in that? That spreads paranoia, that causes America to get attacked MORE by other countries because in their mind if they didn't do it first than we'd just go after them first instead.

 

We are dealing with a big problem. Plain and simple.

 

Yes, and we shouldn't be. See a few paragraphs up.

 

I gotta know --- at what point did the entire left become scared little girls?

 

Honestly.

 

At a point, there were once SOME Democrats who realized that some fights were worth fighting.

 

That's not "the entire left", that's fucking America. That's human nature to be oriented toward's one's own self, or in this case, one's country, and not spend our labor and our lives and our money on land and religious disputes on the other side of the globe that have been going on for 100+ years.

 

You're crippling yourself by thinking this is simply left/right. My Dad's been voting Republican since before I've been alive, aside from 92 when he voted Perot. He doesn't discuss politics much, he doesn't attend rallies, he doesn't even feel comfortable talking about political subjects with friends, neighbors, or even us. He grew up watching the Cold War and Vietnam and while he doesn't see Vietnam in the Iraq war like "the entire left" does, even HE's not voting for Bush out of anger of the Iraq situation (actually leaving the ballot blank, since he won't vote for Kerry either.)

 

This isn't left vs right. This is Americans vs an administration that thinks it can set all the rules it likes without having to answer to anyone or anything.

 

Don't even TRY and BS us and say you'd have supported it at the time because you OBVIOUSLY would not have.

 

I support having a larger supply of firearms than the other guy. I support storing and the necessary use of nuclear weapons, though I don't approve scaling nuclears down to the point that they can be used as conventional non-WMD warfare.

 

If you're going to go to war with someone, you'd better be prepared to nuke them. If you're not ready to use nukes, then you shouldn't go to war with them.

 

Then don't sit here and pretend you wouldn't have carped about Reagan and every little thing he did at the time because we all know you damned well would have.

 

I've carped about Reagan in previous threads here. I'm just saying I don't see him as entirely bad. Same with Bush Sr, who was a pretty good President aside from his opinion on Athiests. I have little to say good about Bush Jr other than the Do Not Call list. He's definitely in the top 5 of my list of Worst Presidents.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes... and our Lord and Savior George W Bush made the bombing of the Cole his FIRST priority when coming into office three months after it occurred...

Ah, so no retaliation for it is the fault of the administration that wasn't even elected when it occurred --- not the administration in power when it did occured.

 

Got it.

Funny I'd give the credit to the Iraqi people who had the balls to stand up for freedom when they knew they'd likely be murdered by terrorists, not Bush who's perfectly safe on another continent.

The people aren't doing SQUAT.

-=Mike

I'm placing the blame on BOTH adminstrations pal... which is something you failed to do. Clinton didnt go after the terrorists after they bombed the Cole (if you dont count freezing their assets and drawing up plans to counter strike) and Dubyah obviously didnt think it was a priority to do so when he inherited the office.

Bush was in office for EIGHT MONTHS.

 

There is A LOT to do in eight months.

 

It's as inane as blaming Hoover for the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

 

Bush did all he COULD do. Heck, he gets flak NOW about what he does --- and this is AFTER the attacks. Do you think he would have had a prayer of getting ANYTHING more substantitve than his increasing the funding of intel groups before 9/11?

 

You can't blame Bush because the domestic political situation was completely antithetical to what are, quite honestly, common sense solutions to the problem.

 

Heck, the Patriot Act does most everything people gripe about failing before 9/11 --- and God knows THAT hasn't been demonized.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So, the Bush Administration should not have had to taken any action over the USS Cole bombing, because it happened outside of it's tenure, but the right still sees fit to blame the 9/11 attacks on Clinton.

 

I see.

Simple question:

 

Bush takes office. He says "We should retaliate over what happened to the Cole"?

 

Care to guess how far THAT idea would have gone? Again, the Patriot Act gets demonized NOW --- and that is a MILD solution to the rampant problems.

As for the war in Iraq, I doubt that in 10-20 years, assuming it's a democracy, that we'll be criticising Bush for an "illegal" war. The toppling of a dictator like Saddam Hussein and the successful installment of democracy will more than outweigh most negative arguments concerning the campaign.

Quite frankly, Americans have precious little concern over international law. Heck, what is the U.N going to do? Condemn us for eternity, as they seemed ready to do to Saddam?

 

At this point, I say leave Iraq as the hellhole the left wants and focus on Iran, since people keep mentioning them as somebody we should deal with. Heck, the students ACTIVELY desire democracy and have basically given up on the current gov't actually bringing freedom to the masses.

Now, is the war in Iraq a matter of revenge by G.W. Bush for their attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush? Is it merely another small part in the ever-growing War on Terror? Or is it merely economic in nature, namely "War for Oil"?

The second primarily, with the first a small part.

 

Honestly, the only people involved in the whole ordeal for the sake of oil --- were our CRITICS. The U.N is working hard to keep down all of the info about the unbelievable mess of Oil-For-Food (it makes Enron seem like a well-run company by comparison), but since we HAVE all of the documents needed to prove everything, we can nail them to the wall.

In the end I don't really think it matters. Bush has had his revenge, whether or not Saddam was a threat the the US or was involved in terrorist activities against American interests is a matter of conjecture.

Nor does it matter if economics is the true driving force behind the war in Iraq, we won't care about how it was done in 10-20 years, maybe even less time than that, if the efforts spent today make the region stable and above all, profitable.

Quite frankly, until the Iraqi citizens rise up en masse and help us, there will never be anything in Iraq but a figurehead central gov't and the country run by warlords.

So we should have gone after bin-Laden earlier? Fine.

 

That doesn't mean we should become interventionists in regional conflits that have been sparring on since before our era, exception for Israel-Palestine since it involves an ally (although to be honest, Israel has everything they need to wipe out the opposing side now anyway).

You're ignoring the BIG PICTURE.

 

Muslim extremists attacked us. If we give them a chance, they will do so again.

 

This is taking the fight TO THEM. If Al Qaeda wants to send its little puppets off to get slaughtered, then the problem is eased a little more. The more terrorist groups that we have to fight in Iraq, the fewer that will be around elsewhere.

 

And, until "mainstream Islam" completely and totally condemns this (which, especially if you compare mainstream Christians' condemnation of the Catholic abuse scandal, they haven't done squat), it'll have to be a "War Against Islam". Muslims can HELP and make it a war against terrorism --- but not too many seem ready to say that their fellow Muslims are in the wrong for ANYTHING.

Are you so dim that you don't see the problem in that? That spreads paranoia, that causes America to get attacked MORE by other countries because in their mind if they didn't do it first than we'd just go after them first instead

Then let the EU try, if they feel scared. Let Canada try if they feel scared. Let China try if they feel scared.

 

Other countries fear us because we don't act like they did. When OTHER countries were extremely powerful, they used the power to subjugate large chunks of the world to serve as colonial possessions.

 

We do not do that --- and it terrifies a lot of them.

That's not "the entire left", that's fucking America. That's human nature to be oriented toward's one's own self, or in this case, one's country, and not spend our labor and our lives and our money on land and religious disputes on the other side of the globe that have been going on for 100+ years.

 

You're crippling yourself by thinking this is simply left/right. My Dad's been voting Republican since before I've been alive, aside from 92 when he voted Perot. He doesn't discuss politics much, he doesn't attend rallies, he doesn't even feel comfortable talking about political subjects with friends, neighbors, or even us. He grew up watching the Cold War and Vietnam and while he doesn't see Vietnam in the Iraq war like "the entire left" does, even HE's not voting for Bush out of anger of the Iraq situation (actually leaving the ballot blank, since he won't vote for Kerry either.)

 

This isn't left vs right. This is Americans vs an administration that thinks it can set all the rules it likes without having to answer to anyone or anything.

This is also the same America that bitches that Bush didn't do "enough" to prevent 9/11 --- and then will ALSO bitch when he pre-actively acts in other situations?

 

We have become a country of utter pussies.

I've carped about Reagan in previous threads here. I'm just saying I don't see him as entirely bad. Same with Bush Sr, who was a pretty good President aside from his opinion on Athiests. I have little to say good about Bush Jr other than the Do Not Call list. He's definitely in the top 5 of my list of Worst Presidents.

That's only because you've HAD to, over the years, realize that Reagan was RIGHT.

 

History will prove Bush correct as well.

 

And in 16 years, you'll claim that you respected him now.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's only because you've HAD to, over the years, realize that Reagan was RIGHT.

 

History will prove Bush correct as well.

 

And in 16 years, you'll claim that you respected him now.

-=Mike

I didn't say I respected Regan then either. Appearantly, it's impossible to say that Reagan did something right that I probably wouldn't have LOVED back then but understand now.

 

But there's sharp contrasts between how Reagan operated and how Bush operated, perhaps not when it comes to dealing with other countries, but certainly when it comes to dealing with the American people.

[Guest hunger4unger]

I think it is easily forgotton that the president is there to SERVE the people.

[Guest thebigjig]

So Bush couldn't do anything about the Cole because he only had 8 MONTHS... MONTHS... 8 of them... 240 + days?

 

You couldn't use the same logic with Clinton considering he had 3 MONTHS... MONTHS... 3 of them... 90 days?

 

Yes, Bush had alot of stuff to do... focus on education, tax cuts etc... so, if you go by THAT logic, then technically you're saying he placed everything ahead of national security and going after the terrorists that attacked us...

 

so basically you're just backing up my point, that terrorism wasn't his top priority

 

thanks

[Guest thebigjig]

So have we REALLY become a country of utter pussies?? Ya know, they said the exact same thing about the doves during the Cold War... you know, the ones that DIDNT think we should strike the Soviet Union first during the Cuban Missle Crisis

 

For some reason, thinking reasonably about things and examining the consequences is considering a "pussys" way out... and shooting first and asking questions later is the republican, AMERICAN, PATRIOTIC way of doing things

 

interesting

[Guest MikeSC]

So Bush couldn't do anything about the Cole because he only had 8 MONTHS... MONTHS... 8 of them... 240 + days?

 

You couldn't use the same logic with Clinton considering he had 3 MONTHS... MONTHS... 3 of them... 90 days?

Except that the Cole was hardly the FIRST terrorist attack on us.

 

And, I know, pursuing it might have taken time away from Clinton's pardoning unrepentant criminals.

Yes, Bush had alot of stuff to do... focus on education, tax cuts etc... so, if you go by THAT logic, then technically you're saying he placed everything ahead of national security and going after the terrorists that attacked us...

Bush couldn't do ANY MORE than he did because the country wouldn't have ever stood for it.

So have we REALLY become a country of utter pussies?? Ya know, they said the exact same thing about the doves during the Cold War... you know, the ones that DIDNT think we should strike the Soviet Union first during the Cuban Missle Crisis

 

For some reason, thinking reasonably about things and examining the consequences is considering a "pussys" way out... and shooting first and asking questions later is the republican, AMERICAN, PATRIOTIC way of doing things

 

interesting

The doves wanted us, during the Cold War, to unilaterally disarm and work with the Soviets. If we listened to them --- the USSR would be alive today.

 

Appeasing people when appeasement has proven itself to be an uber-shitty way to handle things is a "pussy" thing.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

The country would have definitely stood for it if he used a massive disinformation campaign similar to how he drummed up support for the war in iraq

 

and so what if the country wouldnt stand for it? I thought Bush was a noble leader that would do what HE thought was right? The fact of the matter Mike, is that terrorism was NOT the Bush administrations top priority, just like it wasnt Clintons top priority, which is why fair minded people will bash both

 

And Kennedy worked with the USSR to disarm a situation that very nearly brought us to nucleur war... when the hawks in his cabinet were arguing that we strike first... and if he had followed the advice of those hawks, we likely wouldn't be arguing right now

 

appeasement isn't ALWAYS a bad thing...

 

either way, it is interesting that the right views the left as a bunch of pussies, while the left views the right as a bunch of trigger happy ignoramuses

[Guest MikeSC]

The country would have definitely stood for it if he used a massive disinformation campaign similar to how he drummed up support for the war in iraq

OK, we can safely discount your opinions.

and so what if the country wouldnt stand for it? I thought Bush was a noble leader that would do what HE thought was right? The fact of the matter Mike, is that terrorism was NOT the Bush administrations top priority, just like it wasnt Clintons top priority, which is why fair minded people will bash both

Actually, Bush gets ALL of the heat.

 

Bush did ALL he could do. He COULDN'T implement the Patriot Act at the time. He couldn't have done profiling at the time.

 

People bitch about it NOW --- God knows the reaction back then.

And Kennedy worked with the USSR to disarm a situation that very nearly brought us to nucleur war... when the hawks in his cabinet were arguing that we strike first... and if he had followed the advice of those hawks, we likely wouldn't be arguing right now

And Reagan IGNORED the doves who said we should unilaterally disarm to show the USSR we want peace and, thanks to that, they ceased to exist.

appeasement isn't ALWAYS a bad thing...

It's ALWAYS a bad thing.

 

Always.

 

Heck, I thought a Brit would have learned that after that country's fiasco.

either way, it is interesting that the right views the left as a bunch of pussies, while the left views the right as a bunch of trigger happy ignoramuses

The right has balls. The left is a bunch of pansies.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

OK, we can safely discount your opinions

 

weapons grade plutonium... niger, enough said

 

Actually, Bush gets ALL of the heat.

 

Bush did ALL he could do. He COULDN'T implement the Patriot Act at the time. He couldn't have done profiling at the time.

 

People bitch about it NOW --- God knows the reaction back then.

 

No he doesnt... the 9/11 commission grilled the Clinton administration as well... infact both Clinton and Gore testified under oath, something Bush strangely enough didnt do

 

And Mike, Bush didnt do ANYTHING... period... end of discussion... obviously he didnt believe terrorism was that big of a threat or he would've attacked three months after the Cole was bombed, but guess what? It wasn't a priority, and you can spin that any way you want, but he showed no interest in doing anything, and he had 8 months to do so

 

 

And Reagan IGNORED the doves who said we should unilaterally disarm to show the USSR we want peace and, thanks to that, they ceased to exist.

 

The USSR would've crumbled anyway, regardless of which policy he chose

 

It's ALWAYS a bad thing.

 

Always.

 

Even during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Damn... I guess attacking first and causing the mass destruction of millions of people instead of working with the Soviets to withdraw the missles would've been a better idea... gotcha

[Guest MikeSC]

OK, we can safely discount your opinions

 

weapons grade plutonium... niger, enough said

Except, and this is being real technical I admit --- BUSH NEVER ONCE SAID THEY GOT ANYTHING FROM NIGER.

 

Good God, what does it take to get that through to you?

Actually, Bush gets ALL of the heat.

 

Bush did ALL he could do. He COULDN'T implement the Patriot Act at the time. He couldn't have done profiling at the time.

 

People bitch about it NOW --- God knows the reaction back then.

 

No he doesnt... the 9/11 commission grilled the Clinton administration as well... infact both Clinton and Gore testified under oath, something Bush strangely enough didnt do

 

And Mike, Bush didnt do ANYTHING... period... end of discussion... obviously he didnt believe terrorism was that big of a threat or he would've attacked three months after the Cole was bombed, but guess what? It wasn't a priority, and you can spin that any way you want, but he showed no interest in doing anything, and he had 8 months to do so

Bush increased intelspending fivefold --- if Clarke is to be believed.

 

You can spin it all you want --- but Bush did all he was capable of doing at the time.

And Reagan IGNORED the doves who said we should unilaterally disarm to show the USSR we want peace and, thanks to that, they ceased to exist.

 

The USSR would've crumbled anyway, regardless of which policy he chose

Not true, actually. Heck, if France didn't have a double agent DEEP in the USSR gov't, we wouldn't have known how deeply they had infiltrated our weapons R & D teams --- and that is why they were able to keep pace with us for years.

It's ALWAYS a bad thing.

 

Always.

 

Even during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Damn... I guess attacking first and causing the mass destruction of millions of people instead of working with the Soviets to withdraw the missles would've been a better idea... gotcha

And WHO was appeased?

 

Was CASTRO appeased?

 

Nope.

 

Kruschev?

 

Nope.

-=Mike

...and you can trace that to JFK's disastrous decision to not support Bay of Pigs one year earlier

[Guest thebigjig]

Bush... STILL used that bit of misinformation to deceive and push his agenda of war after being told for a year that the source wasn't reliable... if Bill Clinton would've fucking lied about that you would be demanding impeachment... jesus christ, read Wilson's new book about the matter, it's quite fascinating

 

Bush increased intelspending fivefold --- if Clarke is to be believed.

 

You can spin it all you want --- but Bush did all he was capable of doing at the time.

 

I'll repeat this one more time... terrorism wasn't a priority... and if it had been a priority, he would've found a way to do something about it, but it's obvious that it wasn't high on his list of things to do, case... closed

 

Not true, actually. Heck, if France didn't have a double agent DEEP in the USSR gov't, we wouldn't have known how deeply they had infiltrated our weapons R & D teams --- and that is why they were able to keep pace with us for years.

 

Russia was a corrupt and slowly crumbling empire before Reagan and it would've fallen without Reagan... it may have been a few years later however

 

And WHO was appeased?

 

Was CASTRO appeased?

 

Nope.

 

Kruschev?

 

Nope.

 

Kennedy cut a deal with Kruschev... textbook appeasement? No, but he didnt use the "its my way or the highway" idealism thats the popular fad in the Bush Administration today. Either way, he DIDNT side with the hawks in his cabinet, and if he would have, the world would've been destroyed... and guess what? He was labeled as a communist sypathiser by the right wing for saving the world

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush... STILL used that bit of misinformation to deceive and push his agenda of war after being told for a year that the source wasn't reliable... if Bill Clinton would've fucking lied about that you would be demanding impeachment... jesus christ, read Wilson's new book about the matter, it's quite fascinating

Wilson is a joke who didn't do ANY investigative work --- by his OWN admission while he in Africa. The ONLY reason he got the job was because of his wife. I care about as much for what that toad has to say as I do what Moore has to say.

 

Again, you don't see me quoting Dick Morris about the Clintons, do you?

Bush increased intelspending fivefold --- if Clarke is to be believed.

 

You can spin it all you want --- but Bush did all he was capable of doing at the time.

 

I'll repeat this one more time... terrorism wasn't a priority... and if it had been a priority, he would've found a way to do something about it, but it's obvious that it wasn't high on his list of things to do, case... closed

I guess it's time for a civics lesson I guess you missed:

 

THE PRESIDENT CAN'T DO EVERYTHING HE WANTS.

 

The Congress would NEVER have approved anything that needed to be done.

Not true, actually. Heck, if France didn't have a double agent DEEP in the USSR gov't, we wouldn't have known how deeply they had infiltrated our weapons R & D teams --- and that is why they were able to keep pace with us for years.

 

Russia was a corrupt and slowly crumbling empire before Reagan and it would've fallen without Reagan... it may have been a few years later however

In 1981, most experts felt they'd never go away. Reagan and Thatcher pushed them over the edge, with help from the French.

And WHO was appeased?

 

Was CASTRO appeased?

 

Nope.

 

Kruschev?

 

Nope.

 

Kennedy cut a deal with Kruschev... textbook appeasement? No, but he didnt use the "its my way or the highway" idealism thats the popular fad in the Bush Administration today. Either way, he DIDNT side with the hawks in his cabinet, and if he would have, the world would've been destroyed... and guess what? He was labeled as a communist sypathiser by the right wing for saving the world

He removes missiles from Turkey we intended to move ANYWAY. Wow, that is some serious diplomacy.

 

You are CLUELESS about appeasement.

 

And, BTW, Reagan was called a psychopath who'd lead us all to nuclear oblivion for not unilaterally disarming.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

All this Clinton vs Bush stuff...gotta remember that no terrorist attacks took place on American soil on Clinton's watch.

 

Also pretty strange that there were calls for impeachment over Clinton gettng a BJ and none over Bush sending 2,000 troops to their deaths for no justified reason.

[KingPK 0]

All this Clinton vs Bush stuff...gotta remember that no terrorist attacks took place on American soil on Clinton's watch.

Someone else want it, or shall I just spike it myself?

 

Mike, Tom, where are you guys?

 

Oh hell, I can't wait:

 

1993 - 1st WTC bombing

1995 - Bombing of Oklahoma City federal building

1996 - Bombing in Olympic Park during Atlanta games

(these last two were "inside jobs", so to speak, but they WERE terrorist attacks nonetheless)

1998 - US Embassies (considered on US soil) bombed in Kenya and Tanzania.

 

The Cole isn't "US soil" technically, at least not to my knowledge.

 

I probably missed some.

Edited May 12, 2004 by Kingpk

[Guest hunger4unger]

Uh..what's to "spike" ?

[KingPK 0]

It means "to drive something into the ground." Some examples are spiking a football, a railroad spike, and your credibility (which I have just done).