Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
jamotto

Bin Laden: Another Attack Can Be Avoided

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry but after reading some of this ridiculous rhetoric I have come to a singular conclusion. Jaguar and Kalshion obviously do not extend their train of thought beyond Republican good, Democrat bad. It is actually pathetic to read these kinds of off the wall comments like Clinton destroyed the Reagan economy. I mean how whacky do you have to be to believe that? Hello, Bush (George Herbert Walker) was the recession President. He had a 90% approval rating and lost the election on the lousy economy. CLINTON THE TAX RAISER? Clinton was a scoundrel and a LIAR but hello... DUMMIES... READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES. Well that lil lie along with a LOUSY economy cost daddy his re-election. The revisionist history is ASTOUNDING. I hear about this Reagan economy (I loved Reagan) which invariably SKIPS THE BUSH economy and I shake my head. STOP LYING TO YOURSELVES. PLEASE. It is irksome to someone that is willing to call a spade a spade. I liked daddy, I thought he was a good President. I hated Clinton. Regardless, I just can't take it when people that LIE TO THEMSELVES call people that look at the reality of the situation the liars.

Bush's economy tanked when 9/11 occured. Yes there was an economic slowdown but ANYONE THAT KNOWS ECONOMICS KNOWS THAT IT IS CYCLICAL. The Bush economy was weakened by a cyclical turn and aggravated by the terrorism of 9/11. Where Bush has failed us miserably is in continuing to grant tax breaks in a time of war, (something that has never happened before) while amassing debt.

I listen to you people scream about Kerry and the 87 billion dollars. KERRY WANTED A BILL PASSED WHICH MADE THE $87 billion a LOAN TO IRAQ and that was PAY AS YOU GO, meaning that the tax cuts had to be repealed so that we didn't end up in this massive DEBT we're in now. You want me to support the war, well at one time I did. I was disgusted though when this President decided that WE'D PAY FOR IT OURSELVES. If the god damn Iraqis wanted freedom so badly WHY THE HELL ARE WE THE ONE'S PAYING FOR IT?! Huh? You talk about immigrants being leeches... YOUR PRESIDENT JUST MADE US A DEBTOR NATION FOR PEOPLE THAT AREN'T AMERICANS!

Keep lying to yourselves but don't expect RATIONAL, THINKING PEOPLE to accept this revisionist TRIPE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, it's the other way around Takvah. You're hate bush rhetoric is clouding you're judgement, you continue to ignore fact after fact after fact that is posted on this board. The fact that you continuely claim that the Congresstional Record is a "Lie" is proof enough

You still believe Kerry like he's some saint. Kerry has lied so many time's that I'm not sure what to believe

I'm still waiting on Kerry to release his military record, hell Bush did when asked.. why hasn't Kerry? Because if it does then he'll loss this election and will be branded as a traitor

All I know is this, becuase Kerry DID NOT (hear me DID NOT) vote for the 87 bill it's possible that that is why we lost over a 1000 troops. IF that bill had passed.. it's possible they would probably still be alive

Again Takvah, you fail to see the position that the president is in

We went into Iraq for several reasons which have been posted a hundred time's on this board by Jag and other's.

Think of it this way, when WW2 started WE went into france and freed them, WE went into germany and freed them... this is NO different, although we paid a high price in that war where still low on the numbers here.

Lol, Takvah. You don't know me.. that being said, you don't know what I'm thinking or what I am like.

I'm not lieing to myself Takvah, I see the picture crystal clear... unlike a few people here I know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFLMAO... Kerry isn't my choice... he is my only choice. Do you understand the subtlety of that statement? I doubt it.

Kerry is no winner but I know what Bush has done in his four years. People say, don't vote for Kerry because you hate Bush. I don't hate Bush, I am voting Bush out on his RECORD. He didn't have a record four years ago when I voted him in... I voted against Al Gore because of HIS BOSS'S RECORD and the fact that Al Gore never said, "this is BS" when it came to Clinton's lies. He showed no leadership when I thought he had an opportunity to condemn what was OBVIOUSLY wrong.

Bush has failed to kill Osama.

Bush has attacked a country that we had contained.

Bush has failed to deal with North Korea.

Bush has failed to deal with Iran.

Bush has alienated this nation and taken us out of the global scheme making us some kind of isolationist regime. This would work if we LIVED ON ANOTHER PLANET... PLANET AMERICA. It doesn't work on EARTH where we are 300 million people out of 6 billion. Some of you need to travel more and observe how SMALL this planet is.

Bush spends without accountability or a plan for repayment. It is convenient because he won't be in office when the bill comes due.

Bush does not address the people or engage them in debate. He is (much like his policies) a sequestered King in his castle. I cannot believe this guy has been in office for four years and is afraid to answer questions.

Bush has opposed most of the 9/11 Commissions suggestions (he even opposed the Commission itself). He couldn't even appear before the commission BY HIMSELF! This is the leader of the free world and he needed Dick there so they could, "get the facts straight?" That was obscene.

Bush opposed the Office of Homeland Security.

I could go on and on and on. I would love to sit and drink a beer with George W. Bush. I bet the guy is a hell of a lot more fun than Kerry but I don't want him to be my President. I am not impressed with his service and while I thank him for it, it's time for him to go. Nothing personal, I made a mistake voting for him and I won't repeat it.

Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that outweighs everything that Kerry did to america back in the 70's?

Kerry betrayed america and lied to the commitee, condemning hundreds of POW's to there deaths

I dunno waht debate's you've been listening to. But the one i listened to show'd Bush ANSWERING the question's that the people presented (those undecided rather)

Takvah, reality check, I actually like how Bush has taken out of the global scheme.. I've always stood by the fact that we should care more about our selves than others, again, why should I care about some homeless child in Sudan or else where when I have my own problems to worry about... like paying the bills that come in every month or week

We where an isolationed nation before WW2 started

I still believe that we should cut ALL tie's to the outside world and start concentrating on the problems HERE in America

I'm also glad that we didn't get France, Germany, and several other nations involved because of the fact that they would've opposed taking Saddam out .. which by the way, they profitted from the oil for food campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Bush opposed the Office of Homeland Security.

Opposed the Office of Homeland Security? Where the heck did you hear that from? Either I wasnt paying attention or that is completely untrue...link please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

ROFLMAO... Kerry isn't my choice... he is my only choice. Do you understand the subtlety of that statement? I doubt it.

Kerry is no winner but I know what Bush has done in his four years. People say, don't vote for Kerry because you hate Bush. I don't hate Bush, I am voting Bush out on his RECORD. He didn't have a record four years ago when I voted him in... I voted against Al Gore because of HIS BOSS'S RECORD and the fact that Al Gore never said, "this is BS" when it came to Clinton's lies. He showed no leadership when I thought he had an opportunity to condemn what was OBVIOUSLY wrong.

Bush has failed to kill Osama.

Bush has attacked a country that we had contained.

Bush has failed to deal with North Korea.

Bush has failed to deal with Iran.

Bush has alienated this nation and taken us out of the global scheme making us some kind of isolationist regime. This would work if we LIVED ON ANOTHER PLANET... PLANET AMERICA. It doesn't work on EARTH where we are 300 million people out of 6 billion. Some of you need to travel more and observe how SMALL this planet is.

Bush spends without accountability or a plan for repayment. It is convenient because he won't be in office when the bill comes due.

Bush does not address the people or engage them in debate. He is (much like his policies) a sequestered King in his castle. I cannot believe this guy has been in office for four years and is afraid to answer questions.

Bush has opposed most of the 9/11 Commissions suggestions (he even opposed the Commission itself). He couldn't even appear before the commission BY HIMSELF! This is the leader of the free world and he needed Dick there so they could, "get the facts straight?" That was obscene.

Bush opposed the Office of Homeland Security.

I could go on and on and on. I would love to sit and drink a beer with George W. Bush. I bet the guy is a hell of a lot more fun than Kerry but I don't want him to be my President. I am not impressed with his service and while I thank him for it, it's time for him to go. Nothing personal, I made a mistake voting for him and I won't repeat it.

Nuff said.

NO, you don't know what Bush has done, the economy is BETTER then when Clinton was in office, unemployment is LOWER then when Clinton was in office, the tax revenues are HIGHER then when Clinton was in office.

Bush has done an OUTSTANDING job, and for you to say otherwise is just BIZARRE, to say the least.

Clinton failed to get Osama in the first place, and he had 3 shots at it. Osama is not a rat that you can trap, he is a human being, he was oin Tora Bora, but got out, now they believe that he is in the Pakistani mountains, go ahead, if you think that you can do what Special forces and a gutted intelligence agency can't, (gutted thanks to Kerry and his ilk BTW) go right ahead, I wish you luck, 25 million awaits you.

We did NOT have Saddam contained, just take a llok at the facts of the oil for food program and say that with a stright face...

We are dealing with North Korea just fine, thier neighbors are taking care of it quite well, we set it up that way. This is NOT between us and North Korea, this is between North Korea and it's neighbors. Do get a grip please.

Iran IS being dealt with, and I for one am all for it. THe Mullahs are coming apart at the seams, and the Iranian people are rioting in the streets, and the Mullahs are helpless to stop them. Iraq has had the exact effect on Iran that Bush and company planned.

We have a 30 nation coalition, the ONLY countries that feel alienated are France, and Germany, so where you get this idea that we have alienated the world, I have NO idea. When did France and Germany become the World?

The economy has grown by 12% in the last 3 years, and OMG, what a concept, guess what? The tax revenue has grown by over 20%, isn't that bizarre, lower taxes, better economy, means MORE tax revenue. Yes, Takvah, there is a plan, get a better economy, and there is MORE money for the government. But you just can't seem to come to grips with that.

The 911 commission was nothing more then a partisan hack job with Clinton CYA on their minds. That was not a BIpartisan commission, it was a Clinton CYA committee. I was against it as well, and not only for those reasons, but because it could have waited, until the emotionalism had settled down a bit, it did NOT have to be done, RIGHT now.

Bush did indeed oppose the office of Homeland Security, as did you, as did I, it has created another beaurocratic monster that the American people have to deal with. There was NO reason that another huge office of the federal government had to be created, it could have been added to existing organizations, such as the FBI etc....

Takvah, all those reasons are wonderful, if you are incapable of thinking long term, Bush is capable of thinking LONG term, and so far has proven able to the job VERY well.

He has been OUTSTANDING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hmm, and the Gulf war was about 38 nations? If I remember correctly, and the numbers of troops etc, percentage wise were about the same.

So to say that this is any different then the gulf war is whistling past the graveyard as far as I am concerned.

We ALWAYS do the lions share, and our coalition partners do some little things to add to it, but VERY IMPORTANT little things.

So sorry Nomad, I disagree totally.

As usual...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

Gulf War Facts

The Coalition

The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:

U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle

Navy: 6 battle; 8 nonbattle

Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle

Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle

Women killed: 15

U.S. wounded in action: 467

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

British wounded in action: 10

French casualties: 2

French wounded in action: 25 (estimated)

Allied Arab casualties: 39

Allied combat air sorties flown: More than 116,000

Coalition aircraft losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)

Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)

Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)

Iraq

In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.

Estimated Iraqi Losses: (Reported by U.S. Central Command, March 7, 1991)

36 fixed-wing aircraft in air-to-air engagements

6 helicopters in air-to-air engagements

68 fixed- and 13 rotary-wing aircraft destroyed on the ground

137 Iraqi aircraft flown to Iran

3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks

2,400 of 2,870 assorted other armored vehicles

2,600 of 3,110 assorted artillery pieces

19 naval ships sunk, 6 damaged

42 divisions made combat-ineffective

Enemy prisoners of war captured: U.S. forces released 71,204 to Saudi control.

The Cost

The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as $71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan ($16 billion). Some of the money pledged by countries such as Saudi Arabia was delivered in the form of in-kind services to troops, such as transportation and food.

BIG differences in ALL areas, except the total number of nations involved. Not only do we now have fewer, countries within the present coalition, another difference, is NOW, all we have are little itty bitty nations, in it purely for the favor of the US, and no true affluential ability to help!!!

DUH!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Was there a perticular reason that you ONLY posted the stats for the Gulf war and NOT for what is going on now?

And was there a perticular reason that you posted it, and then quoted it in another post?

Never mind, I see what you did, you hit quote, instead of edit. Never mind. I do that as well, although I normally catch it before I hit post again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody else think that Bin Laden knows the U.S. is not going to back down and will find him eventually and that is why he is trying this "you leave us alone we'll leave you alone" tactic? (at least that's the message I got from his video)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

Jamotto, I know what you just tried to do.. you tried to impliment Bush as the one who murdered them... sorry, nice try.. but it didn't work. That above statement was pointed at Osama

well, I seem to have missed this response. No, I did not mean to implement Bush. If that is what you think then you are very wrong.

Bin Laden stands accused for planning out the events that killed so many on September 11th. I would be the first to cheer on the day he his captured and justice is served.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it would do your side of the argument any good even if he had posted that war versus this war. Even with Iraq then having a somewhat formidable force we lost a total of around 300 souls. The Iraq we attacked in 2003 was a shadow of that former self. I would be shocked if we destroyed armor in numbers that are but a FRACTIOn of those destroyed in 1991. Iraq was for the most part unarmed and many soldiers have said, considering the buildup of commanders the fighting in initial combat was light.

Now however, well after the declared end of major combat we find ourselves mourning over 1100 souls and contemplating the thousands of soldiers maimed. The toll of this war has been much greater than we had envisioned. This is not a war for great mechanized armies, this is a war fought with guns man to man. I do not think that our soldiers were properly prepared.

As for Bin Laden, he should be in hell with his 1487 toothless whores enjoying his fiery martyrdom... but no... he's a more prolific movie maker than Spielberg. GREAT JOB GEORGE. I don't think Bin Laden's approach was "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone," he was AGAIN making threats. He was again scaring women and children all the while playing on our fear. This sonofa***** needs to be taken out and if that means we march troops over the mountains and into Pakistan to do it then SO BE IT. People here want to attack every country under the sun, well let's put the pressure on Musharef and tell him DELIVER THIS SOB or get the HELL OUT OF OUR WAY!

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

I don't think it would do your side of the argument any good even if he had posted that war versus this war. Even with Iraq then having a somewhat formidable force we lost a total of around 300 souls. The Iraq we attacked in 2003 was a shadow of that former self. I would be shocked if we destroyed armor in numbers that are but a FRACTIOn of those destroyed in 1991. Iraq was for the most part unarmed and many soldiers have said, considering the buildup of commanders the fighting in initial combat was light.

Now however, well after the declared end of major combat we find ourselves mourning over 1100 souls and contemplating the thousands of soldiers maimed. The toll of this war has been much greater than we had envisioned. This is not a war for great mechanized armies, this is a war fought with guns man to man. I do not think that our soldiers were properly prepared.

As for Bin Laden, he should be in hell with his 1487 toothless whores enjoying his fiery martyrdom... but no... he's a more prolific movie maker than Spielberg. GREAT JOB GEORGE. I don't think Bin Laden's approach was "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone," he was AGAIN making threats. He was again scaring women and children all the while playing on our fear. This sonofa***** needs to be taken out and if that means we march troops over the mountains and into Pakistan to do it then SO BE IT. People here want to attack every country under the sun, well let's put the pressure on Musharef and tell him DELIVER THIS SOB or get the HELL OUT OF OUR WAY!

Peace

You're probably right on your first point, yes, I am feeling rather mellow today.

And the last point, LET'S DO IT!!

I would love to get that SOB and put him front of a firing squad, or better yet, put him in a cell with 200 or so Pigs for the rest of his life....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

I don't think Bin Laden's approach was "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone," he was AGAIN making threats. He was again scaring women and children all the while playing on our fear.

That may be the case and that may be how a lot of people took it. I didn't take it that way, though. I see it as him attempting to look tough and scare us because he knows we aren't going to back down. He's low on options. I'm not scared of Bin Laden because I know Bush's stance on terror and he won't stop fighting terrorism. What I am scared of, though, is the though of Kerry getting elected because I have NO IDEA what his stance on anything is. (I'm not sure even he does.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

What I am scared of, though, is the though of Kerry getting elected because I have NO IDEA what his stance on anything is. (I'm not sure even he does.)


He puts his finger to the wind to see what direction the wind is blowing.

I live in MA where he's been Senator for like, forever, and I still have no idea what this guy is passionate about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Nice try. I don't see what the Dems had to do with a localized farce in Florida. Besides, IIRC, the Supreme Court decided the election, gave it to Bush and landed us where we are today.

No, I meant YOU caused to screw-up down there. Probably had the detractors so pissed off that they couldn't muster the strength to punch through a "chad".

Heh, I really missed these rants on here. *Adds item to "to-do" list.

Besides, I'll take some comfort in the fact that the detractors have less votes than Nader in Maine.

PS: Nice to see you guys again, Steve and Aaron...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:


Thanks. That was interesting.

It does make me wonder if we're not shoving our views and ways down the throats of those who are attacking us. That wouldn't surprise me.

America does, from time to time, commit atrocious acts, either by action or inaction, that go unanswered. It's not because we're evil, but rather because we're human, and stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

...Jaguar and Kalshion obviously do not extend their train of thought beyond Republican good, Democrat bad.

Thank you. I thought Reagan was AWESOME, and that Carter was horrible. I'd vote for Arnold if I lived in California. Clinton was an AMAZING president, the best to have come by in a long time. Bush is (hopefully was horrible. The fact that people are so clueless to this makes me realize that I am in fact wasting my breath. Might as well talk to a pound cake.

quote:

Clinton did an outstanding job?

Yeah, right, whatever.....

Certifiable. Absolutely commitable. I just ... LOL. What planet are we being invaded from? I mean, really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

The fact that clinton IGNORED the CIS intel briefing every morning is a stunning fact that shows that Clinton didn't care about american safety

Sorry for the possible double-post but I was so amazed to learn that Kalshion was part of the white house staff when Clinton was president that I just couldn't contain myself.

I also wish there was a website that compared the time George Bush spent playing golf with the time Bill Clinton spent playing golf, and for light-heartedness, a mutual comparison with how much golf time Osama has put in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Clinton got us 911, got us a nuclear armed Norht Korea, gutted the military, and caused the recession that Bush inherited with his tax hikes.

Clinton was a HORRIBLE president, and history will look on him with disdain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

The full transcript from the Al Jazeera site is ummm, interesting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. That was interesting.

_________________________________________

Hehe; raw copy and paste.

Anyway, thanks.

My thought is if he (Osama) "says" it is not in the hands of Bush and not in the hands of Kerry then is he not calling for the US to overthrow its government? Not that we would of course. But then he goes to say the states (nations) that do not attack us/him (uhhh who is us?) would not be attacked.

Errrmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Clinton got us 911, got us a nuclear armed Norht Korea, gutted the military, and caused the recession that Bush inherited with his tax hikes.

Clinton was a HORRIBLE president, and history will look on him with disdain.

And turned a blind eye to Bin Laden's Afghanistan camps. But maybe thats what you mean by 911?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton was a LUCKY president. I still haven't found a single liberal that can show me a left-wing Clinton economic policy which stimulated growth (Clinton DID vote for NAFTA, but NAFTA's a conservative issue).

Clinton's economic success was spurned by the prolification of personal computers and the Internet, (neither of which have anything to do with Clinton, well maybe Al Gore... )

But, even then, recession was made INEVITABLE. Why? Consumer spending was awesome, but out-of-control. Clinton's economy was merely a catylist for record consumer debt (which is well-known as a root cause of recession. If you don't understand how that is, just ask me, I'll explain it).

Furthermore, the Clinton economy was overstated, meaning, it wasn't as good as people thought it was. Just look at the facts: Nearly 45% of all tech stocks at the time carried artificially inflated values, due to trading firms giving false investment advice in order to boost THEIR personal holdings. Just think about it; if you really wanted to cash in, purchase 1000 shares of a stock priced at $10, encourage clients to purchase said stock thusly raising the value (but not dividends) of said stock, then sell when you near a peak. It's a sort of "insider day-trading".

Several major brokerage firms have been sued for BILLIONS over this, and I believe that more lawsuits are still pending or pending settlements.

The point being, Clinton's market economy wasn't even as good as was stated.

As for jobs, his unemployment rate was HIGHER than Bush's after 4 years.

Foreign Policy: Made the US look like a joke after bailing out of Somalia because we took a few casualties. That's the thing about liberals: they have the stomach to talk tough about force, but not deal with the consequences of employing said force.

On a positive note, Clinton did make strong allies, notably with the UN, but did nothing to show America's resolve to the world when it comes to the threat of force. As a result, no one believed we would use force when we threatened.

John Kerry has many similarities to Clinton, notably his lack of intestinal fortitude when it comes time to back up your rhetoric. Just think about it: Kerry voted for the authorization for the President to use force and then criticizes him for using it. He justifies that criticism by saying he wanted the threat of force to loom over Iraq -- he didn't actually want to USE that force.

Think about how HUGE of a foreign policy disaster that would have been. We threatened force, authorized it in the senate, and then backed down. Would anyone EVER take us seriously again? And furthermore, how IRRESPONSIBLE is it to vote for authorization of force KNOWING that you don't intend to use it if you have to, ESPECIALLY given that you should, as a senator, thinking of the DISASTROUS implications such a scenario would have?

And FINALLY, if you are running for president, how responsible is it to tell the world your bluffing habits?

The reason I bring up Kerry is to draw a parallel between recent events and Clinton. Clinton, by withdrawing from Somalia, told the world that the US would bend to anyone's will so long as you killed a few US troops and assure that it's publicized. Clinton, showed the world the limits of his resolve by responding to Bin Laden by trying (and subsequently failing) to lob cruise missiles at him (you know: cruise missiles are "safe" weapons as no Americans are at risk).

9/11 made the implications of these foreign policy disasters clear. To believe otherwise one would have to either be completely inundated with the historical innacuries of Michael Moore's drivel or believe that historical precendence is not an indicator of future events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hey Aramike, Good to see you man!!!

And I was in Milwaukee 2 weeks ago, we could have gotten together...ARGH!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×