But they can disapprove it.ATG wrote:
The United States got involved because we wanted a in your face show of power inside the former USSR.sergeriver wrote:
No, it was a threat to the Bosnians. There was no oil involved, so Clinton's decision was 100% humanitarian, he was avoiding a Genocide. Bush didn't go to Iraq coz he was deeply concerned about Iraqis. That's the difference.usmarine2007 wrote:
Was Bosnia a threat to the US or the world?
All bullshit aside, that's why we were there. Presidents don't make war policy.
Clinton didn't take care of the Taliban either, even though the intelligence was correct.sergeriver wrote:
Because they had the same wrong intelligence reports. The difference between Clinton and Bush is, while Clinton didn't invade Iraq, Bush based on the same reports did.
So, are you admitting that Bush did wrong invading Iraq? Regarding the Taliban, I don't think Clinton wanted to take care of him, perhaps he thought the Taliban was a solution. Maybe he did wrong in that one.usmarine2007 wrote:
Clinton didn't take care of the Taliban either, even though the intelligence was correct.sergeriver wrote:
Because they had the same wrong intelligence reports. The difference between Clinton and Bush is, while Clinton didn't invade Iraq, Bush based on the same reports did.
Maybe?sergeriver wrote:
Maybe he did wrong in that one.
Where is the love?
You did not answer.usmarine2007 wrote:
Maybe?sergeriver wrote:
Maybe he did wrong in that one.
I have before since you always ask.....but here we go AGAIN.sergeriver wrote:
You did not answer.usmarine2007 wrote:
Maybe?sergeriver wrote:
Maybe he did wrong in that one.
Yes, Bush is ultimately responsible for the failure of the intelligence community and the people who work for him. However, that is what he has to rely on. Did he put pressure on them? I do not now. If anyone is truly to blame, it is Cheney. The Pres is just the CEO of the company.
And the vice was just the Ceo of Halliburton. Why would Cheney want to invade Iraq?usmarine2007 wrote:
I have before since you always ask.....but here we go AGAIN.sergeriver wrote:
You did not answer.usmarine2007 wrote:
Maybe?
Yes, Bush is ultimately responsible for the failure of the intelligence community and the people who work for him. However, that is what he has to rely on. Did he put pressure on them? I do not now. If anyone is truly to blame, it is Cheney. The Pres is just the CEO of the company.
/sarcasm
See...now we agree.sergeriver wrote:
And the vice was just the Ceo of Halliburton. Why would Cheney want to invade Iraq?
/sarcasm
Riddle me this -- how good are intelligence reports at reporting the intent of individuals?
Must be pretty good. You guys are experts at knowing everything behind Bush and his intentions.Fen321 wrote:
Riddle me this -- how good are intelligence reports at reporting the intent of individuals?
hehe you are right it is easier for those from the states to gauge the intention of our administration, but can you imagine trying to gauge the intend of other countries?usmarine2007 wrote:
Must be pretty good. You guys are experts at knowing everything behind Bush and his intentions.Fen321 wrote:
Riddle me this -- how good are intelligence reports at reporting the intent of individuals?
And you are expert at knowing everything behind Clinton and his lack of involvement.usmarine2007 wrote:
Must be pretty good. You guys are experts at knowing everything behind Bush and his intentions.Fen321 wrote:
Riddle me this -- how good are intelligence reports at reporting the intent of individuals?
Nope. But, when in Rome...............sergeriver wrote:
And you are expert at knowing everything behind Clinton and his lack of involvement.usmarine2007 wrote:
Must be pretty good. You guys are experts at knowing everything behind Bush and his intentions.Fen321 wrote:
Riddle me this -- how good are intelligence reports at reporting the intent of individuals?
No, but seriously i was trying to make a point of this. The intelligence community irrespective of what administration is heading it WILL ALWAYS run into the problem of measure some arbitrary indicator of intent. Which is why we have the majority of our intelligence failures.
Bubbalo, gets fed by me on a regular basis. His scales are shiney and healthy.
He's a healthy lizard.
With this statement it seems you have damned the actions of the United States right or wrong. This is a positive step towards avoiding the deaths of many. In case you haven't realized it Bush is not up for re-election, nor will he be able to. He has done what he feels right in the past despite his "image".sergeriver wrote:
I don't know everyone else, but I don't bitch about US getting involved if the motivations are humanitarian like Clinton's decisions to get involved in Bosnia or Somalia. I bitch about Bush making a mess in Iraq. I support Clinton, even with his mistakes (he is human). But I can't support Bush knowing his motivations. If you think Bush gives a shit about Iraq, you are wrong. He's trying to improve his image and that's why he's after a diplomatic solution now.usmarine2007 wrote:
But why doesn't anyone bring that up when they start bitching about the US getting involved in people's business? And does that not contribute to the war machine?sergeriver wrote:
No, it was a threat to the Bosnians. There was no oil involved, so Clinton's decision was 100% humanitarian, he was avoiding a Genocide. Bush didn't go to Iraq coz he was deeply concerned about Iraqis. That's the difference.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How come? I said I support Clinton, and I don't support Bush. Where in hell have I damned the actions of the United States?Kmarion wrote:
With this statement it seems you have damned the actions of the United States right or wrong. This is a positive step towards avoiding the deaths of many. In case you haven't realized it Bush is not up for re-election, nor will he be able to. He has done what he feels right in the past despite his "image".sergeriver wrote:
I don't know everyone else, but I don't bitch about US getting involved if the motivations are humanitarian like Clinton's decisions to get involved in Bosnia or Somalia. I bitch about Bush making a mess in Iraq. I support Clinton, even with his mistakes (he is human). But I can't support Bush knowing his motivations. If you think Bush gives a shit about Iraq, you are wrong. He's trying to improve his image and that's why he's after a diplomatic solution now.usmarine2007 wrote:
But why doesn't anyone bring that up when they start bitching about the US getting involved in people's business? And does that not contribute to the war machine?
You are right. He can't run for presidency again, but his party must be very worried about his image.
Because even in the face of positive actions you skip around the good that can come of it and refuse to accept it as something everyone can benefit from. It's more transparent than you think. As far as his image, there are more Americans out there that vote for the candidate rather than the party.sergeriver wrote:
How come? I said I support Clinton, and I don't support Bush. Where in hell have I damned the actions of the United States?Kmarion wrote:
With this statement it seems you have damned the actions of the United States right or wrong. This is a positive step towards avoiding the deaths of many. In case you haven't realized it Bush is not up for re-election, nor will he be able to. He has done what he feels right in the past despite his "image".sergeriver wrote:
I don't know everyone else, but I don't bitch about US getting involved if the motivations are humanitarian like Clinton's decisions to get involved in Bosnia or Somalia. I bitch about Bush making a mess in Iraq. I support Clinton, even with his mistakes (he is human). But I can't support Bush knowing his motivations. If you think Bush gives a shit about Iraq, you are wrong. He's trying to improve his image and that's why he's after a diplomatic solution now.
You are right. He can't run for presidency again, but his party must be very worried about his image.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What are you talking about? Which are the good things about Bush I refuse to accept? You are wrong if you think the Republican candidates are happy with his image.Kmarion wrote:
Because even in the face of positive actions you skip around the good that can come of it and refuse to accept it as something everyone can benefit from. It's more transparent than you think. As far as his image, there are more Americans out there that vote for the candidate rather than the party.sergeriver wrote:
How come? I said I support Clinton, and I don't support Bush. Where in hell have I damned the actions of the United States?Kmarion wrote:
With this statement it seems you have damned the actions of the United States right or wrong. This is a positive step towards avoiding the deaths of many. In case you haven't realized it Bush is not up for re-election, nor will he be able to. He has done what he feels right in the past despite his "image".
You are right. He can't run for presidency again, but his party must be very worried about his image.
By accept I mean you think his motives are other than what he is presenting.. Skepticism is healthy but not when it completely closes your mind to the possibility that someone may actually be doing something for the right reason.sergeriver wrote:
What are you talking about? Which are the good things about Bush I refuse to accept? You are wrong if you think the Republican candidates are happy with his image.Kmarion wrote:
Because even in the face of positive actions you skip around the good that can come of it and refuse to accept it as something everyone can benefit from. It's more transparent than you think. As far as his image, there are more Americans out there that vote for the candidate rather than the party.sergeriver wrote:
How come? I said I support Clinton, and I don't support Bush. Where in hell have I damned the actions of the United States?
You are right. He can't run for presidency again, but his party must be very worried about his image.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Cmon, do you really believe that? Do you really believe he invaded Iraq coz he cares about Iraqis? I could believe that about Clinton.Kmarion wrote:
By accept I mean you think his motives are other than what he is presenting.. Skepticism is healthy but not when it completely closes your mind to the possibility that someone may actually be doing something for the right reason.sergeriver wrote:
What are you talking about? Which are the good things about Bush I refuse to accept? You are wrong if you think the Republican candidates are happy with his image.Kmarion wrote:
Because even in the face of positive actions you skip around the good that can come of it and refuse to accept it as something everyone can benefit from. It's more transparent than you think. As far as his image, there are more Americans out there that vote for the candidate rather than the party.
No I think he did because he took action on the same intelligence the entire world had. But the point is any kind of diplomacy should be encouraged and we should remain hopeful. You seem determined to break it down as a farce.sergeriver wrote:
Cmon, do you really believe that? Do you really believe he invaded Iraq coz he cares about Iraqis? I could believe that about Clinton.Kmarion wrote:
By accept I mean you think his motives are other than what he is presenting.. Skepticism is healthy but not when it completely closes your mind to the possibility that someone may actually be doing something for the right reason.sergeriver wrote:
What are you talking about? Which are the good things about Bush I refuse to accept? You are wrong if you think the Republican candidates are happy with his image.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I said before this is a huge step. Read the entire thread before making assumptions.Kmarion wrote:
No I think he did because he took action on the same intelligence the entire world had. But the point is any kind of diplomacy should be encouraged and we should remain hopeful. You seem determined to break it down as a farce.sergeriver wrote:
Cmon, do you really believe that? Do you really believe he invaded Iraq coz he cares about Iraqis? I could believe that about Clinton.Kmarion wrote:
By accept I mean you think his motives are other than what he is presenting.. Skepticism is healthy but not when it completely closes your mind to the possibility that someone may actually be doing something for the right reason.
My assumption is that you cannot see anything positive, period.sergeriver wrote:
I said before this is a huge step. Read the entire thread before making assumptions.