Are talking about her answer to the question not being to your standards?nukchebi0 wrote:
@Kmarion: Did you miss my post?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Understand the point. But airstrikes don't seem to carry the same weight as invasion and occupation. Maybe Clinton watched this little gem:Kmarion wrote:
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
I know, I know. It isn't fair. Media involvement in wars it not necessarily a good thing.usmarine wrote:
well of course. i will submit these wars are 10 times harder. why you ask? its simple. when an american fucks up, its all over the news and the US is bashed. when a hajji do it, they get praised and get money and support. its not easy to fight someone who does not care about civilian life when you have to or you might go to jail.nukchebi0 wrote:
I meant compared to World War II or Korea.
My standards are at least answering the question or demonstrating some original thought that indicates some grasp of knowledge, not a blind repetition of Republican talking points.Are talking about her answer to the question not being to your standards?
help me understand what the end game was. it seems like he talked tough and set it up for the next guy tbh.Reciprocity wrote:
Understand the point. But airstrikes don't seem to carry the same weight as invasion and occupation.
In post WW2 Germany there were " insurgents " and snipers shooting at the Americans in areas that were suppose too be secure.usmarine wrote:
well of course. i will submit these wars are 10 times harder. why you ask? its simple. when an american fucks up, its all over the news and the US is bashed. when a hajji do it, they get praised and get money and support. its not easy to fight someone who does not care about civilian life when you have to or you might go to jail.nukchebi0 wrote:
I meant compared to World War II or Korea.
The American commanders met with the leaders of whatever village the problem was in and told them they had 24 hours to get it stopped or the town would be bombarded with artillery until it stopped.
Speaking for the civilians now, we don't want our boys to have to fight who does not care about civilian life with guns and find their bombs with their Hummers.
There are bombers and artillery for that.
yes ATG, but you didnt have to watch out for every single coke can or piece of trash blowing up in your face.
Yea, I posted that well over a year ago. Maybe Clinton shouldn't have gutted our intelligence agencies and we might have seen the storm coming? Hindsight is a game we all can play.Reciprocity wrote:
Understand the point. But airstrikes don't seem to carry the same weight as invasion and occupation. Maybe Clinton watched this little gem:Kmarion wrote:
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Did you read what I said?usmarine wrote:
yes ATG, but you didnt have to watch out for every single coke can or piece of trash blowing up in your face.
yes i did.ATG wrote:
Did you read what I said?usmarine wrote:
yes ATG, but you didnt have to watch out for every single coke can or piece of trash blowing up in your face.
The Clinton Doctrine:
Clinton says attack on Iraq averted potential Iraqi aggression
Clinton says attack on Iraq averted potential Iraqi aggression
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The US was winding down since the cold war was over. Clinton may have "gutted" our intelligence agencies, but doesn't congress control the budget? And wasn't congress in Republican majority for six of Clinton's eight years?Kmarion wrote:
Yea, I posted that well over a year ago. Maybe Clinton shouldn't have gutted our intelligence agencies and we might have seen the storm coming? Hindsight is a game we all can play.
Poor George must have been caught completely off guard.
So does that mean the Democratic congress gets all the blame for the current economic situation?.. things were gravy up until 2006. The truth is Clinton himself made it a point to reduce the military and intelligence capability. Refusing to sign anything that didn't bend to his will.Reciprocity wrote:
The US was winding down since the cold war was over. Clinton may have "gutted" our intelligence agencies, but doesn't congress control the budget? And wasn't congress in Republican majority for six of Clinton's eight years?Kmarion wrote:
Yea, I posted that well over a year ago. Maybe Clinton shouldn't have gutted our intelligence agencies and we might have seen the storm coming? Hindsight is a game we all can play.
Poor George must have been caught completely off guard.
I guess that republican congress also gets credit for eliminating the deficit under Clinton.
lol@ no shit Bin Laden was determined. He had already hit the WTC when Clinton was in office.. gg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
As things stand now, it appears to be working out in Iraq, and I am happy.usmarine wrote:
yes i did.ATG wrote:
Did you read what I said?usmarine wrote:
yes ATG, but you didnt have to watch out for every single coke can or piece of trash blowing up in your face.
I have always thought we needs to be much more aggressive if we were going to go to war. At the time it seemed like a good idea to just keep them tanks rolling all the way through Tehran.
In other words, Sadr should be long dead, Bin Ladens head should be on ice in a freezer. We should have killed a lot more people, the way I saw things at the time.
Now, I just don't know. It wasn't the surge, it was the Iraqi peeps rejecting AQ. It remains to be seen if they can function. I distinctly remember being told the Iraqis were going to pay for their own liberation. I consider reimbursement part of total victory beings how Iraq is awash in oil dollars.
We all suspect our way of life and Islamic culture in the M.E. is incompatible ( speaking for the average red neck ). We will not tolerate suicide bombings as politics and the shameful ' honor ' killings of women. We will never accept anything like Sharia Law as some parts of Europe have. I just can't see it.
Yet...we foist our form of government on them in the hopes that they will embrace democracy. Meanwhile nuclear weapons proliferate.
Quietly U.S. officials have informed Pakistan that their time is up. We want OBL. An all out push is one to get him before Bush leaves office. Special Ops, drones a plenty are raining fire and hell down on them. Imagine Gorge Bush leading a ticker tape parade in his last days of office, a hated president ( and 75% of that is 100% due to a biased media ) leaving office as a war hero, celebrating the death or capture of Osama.
We've told the Pakis that we don't give a fuck if they have nukes or not.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 710041.ece
I defer to those that have looked the Iraqis in the eyes as to whether it was a worthy cause. In time it may seem so to Americans. Right now, we just want our good economy back.
he also refused bin laden being handed to him on a silver platter.Kmarion wrote:
So does that mean the Democratic congress gets all the blame for the current economic situation?.. things were gravy up until 2006. The truth is Clinton himself made it a point to reduce the military and intelligence capability. Refusing to sign anything that didn't bend to his will.Reciprocity wrote:
The US was winding down since the cold war was over. Clinton may have "gutted" our intelligence agencies, but doesn't congress control the budget? And wasn't congress in Republican majority for six of Clinton's eight years?Kmarion wrote:
Yea, I posted that well over a year ago. Maybe Clinton shouldn't have gutted our intelligence agencies and we might have seen the storm coming? Hindsight is a game we all can play.
Poor George must have been caught completely off guard.
I guess that republican congress also gets credit for eliminating the deficit under Clinton.
lol@ no shit Bin Laden was determined. He had already hit the WTC when Clinton was in office.. gg
They do get credit. and part of that eliminating the deficit was the reduction in military spending. so they can get the blame as well. I guess we can't have it all.Kmarion wrote:
I guess that republican congress also gets credit for eliminating the deficit under Clinton.
Making certain concessions to Clinton was a necessity. You are actually buying into this rubbish that Republicans were trying to reduce military spending? I think I've heard it all now.Reciprocity wrote:
They do get credit. and part of that eliminating the deficit was the reduction in military spending. so they can get the blame as well. I guess we can't have it all.Kmarion wrote:
I guess that republican congress also gets credit for eliminating the deficit under Clinton.
Edit: Actually, Bush Sr. did start the cuts on the retreat of the cold war. I think the Clinton admin just went too far.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lulz
hence, the Bush doctrine?usmarine wrote:
lulz
by your rationale, Reagan and the CIA are just as culpable as Clinton in allowing Bin Laden to run free.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2008-09-14 00:04:01)
hence the plate of shit left for bushReciprocity wrote:
hence, the Bush doctrine?
i dunno. when i was there it was seek and destroy. domination was the word of the day in '03ATG wrote:
I defer to those that have looked the Iraqis in the eyes as to whether it was a worthy cause. In time it may seem so to Americans. Right now, we just want our good economy back.
I never took usm for a dominatrix.. heh.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oh we spanked some ass so to speak.Kmarion wrote:
I never took usm for a dominatrix.. heh.
want some babe
but for real, when i was there it was fairly straight forward. anyone holding a weapon got two to the chest and one to the head. that changed later on obviously.