you might even say that they have been more successful withe bush in powerCameronPoe wrote:
Yeah - because extremists aren't plotting to murder American civilians with Bush in power.... lolssj3barua wrote:
I would rather die with Bush in power than live knowing Clinton was in the oval office getting head, while extremist were plotting to murder American civilians.aardfrith wrote:
Bush gets Americans killed.
Clinton gets his dick sucked.
Which is better for America? I vote B.. Clinton
Poll
Who Would You Vote For? (only Americans)
| Bill Clinton | 64% | 64% - 48 | ||||
| Gwb | 35% | 35% - 26 | ||||
| Total: 74 | ||||||
How?herrr_smity wrote:
you might even say that they have been more successful withe bush in power
one word, IRAQ
Well world public opinion is currently against USA, Al Qaeda has never had so many members and such reach, Iraq has been over-run with terrorism, Iran feels it has the opportunity to act tough, the Taliban is resurgent again, Hezbollah fought Israel to a stalemate, at least 3000 Americans have died from attacks since 9/11, US & UK civil liberties have been curbed and US public opinion has been split into two almost diametrically opposed camps.usmarine2007 wrote:
How?herrr_smity wrote:
you might even say that they have been more successful withe bush in power
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-25 09:21:38)
How many American civilians are in Iraq?herrr_smity wrote:
one word, IRAQ
you have a bunch of contractors and "soldiers" in iraq
The Taliban is running around from cave to cave trying not to get bombed, which is slightly different to what they were doing in the 90's. Now, just talking about American targets, I can give you a list of many American targets hit before 9/11 all over the world. I can't say the same since 9/11. (not including Iraq since it is a war zone)CameronPoe wrote:
Well world public opinion is currently against USA, Al Qaeda has never had so many members and such reach, the Taliban is resurgent again, Hezbollah fought Israel to a stalemate, US & UK civil liberties have been curbed and US public opinion has been split into two almost diametrically opposed camps.usmarine2007 wrote:
How?herrr_smity wrote:
you might even say that they have been more successful withe bush in power
Iraq for one (a number of civilian American contractors have been killed in Iraq, more than the total number of Americans killed by muslim extremists under Clinton, certainly), but the major point is that the largest terrorist attack in history happened under Bush. The responsibility falls on him, there were inadequacies in the security response to the situation, which may not have occured under a different administration and may have resulted in far fewer lives being lost.usmarine2007 wrote:
How?herrr_smity wrote:
you might even say that they have been more successful withe bush in power
Most contractors volunteer to go to a war zone for monetary purposes.Bertster7 wrote:
Iraq for one (a number of civilian American contractors have been killed in Iraq, more than the total number of Americans killed by muslim extremists under Clinton, certainly), but the major point is that the largest terrorist attack in history happened under Bush. The responsibility falls on him, there were inadequacies in the security response to the situation, which may not have occured under a different administration and may have resulted in far fewer lives being lost.usmarine2007 wrote:
How?herrr_smity wrote:
you might even say that they have been more successful withe bush in power
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-02-25 09:27:32)
The fact of the matter is that terrorist organisations have grown immensely under Bush and they don't have to go far to cut an Americans head off or detonate an IED under a passing American vehicle. With the US preoccupied in Iraq, Iran is emboldened and feels it can get away with a lot more than it would ordinarily. Bush basically handed Al Qaeda everything it wanted on a big silver platter.
neither thier both terrible BRING BACK THE GOOD DEMS then well talk
Doesn't stop them from counting as civilians. The numerous mercenaries over there also count as civilians, even the ones employed by the Iranians.usmarine2007 wrote:
Most contractors volunteer to go to a war zone for monetary purposes.Bertster7 wrote:
Iraq for one (a number of civilian American contractors have been killed in Iraq, more than the total number of Americans killed by muslim extremists under Clinton, certainly), but the major point is that the largest terrorist attack in history happened under Bush. The responsibility falls on him, there were inadequacies in the security response to the situation, which may not have occured under a different administration and may have resulted in far fewer lives being lost.usmarine2007 wrote:
How?
Nor does that address my main point.
I thought bin laden wanted all us troops out of the ME? So, we leave they win, we stay they win?CameronPoe wrote:
The fact of the matter is that terrorist organisations have grown immensely under Bush and they don't have to go far to cut an Americans head off or detonate an IED under a passing American vehicle. With the US preoccupied in Iraq, Iran is emboldened and feels it can get away with a lot more than it would ordinarily. Bush basically handed Al Qaeda everything it wanted on a big silver platter.
No.usmarine2007 wrote:
I thought bin laden wanted all us troops out of the ME? So, we leave they win, we stay they win?CameronPoe wrote:
The fact of the matter is that terrorist organisations have grown immensely under Bush and they don't have to go far to cut an Americans head off or detonate an IED under a passing American vehicle. With the US preoccupied in Iraq, Iran is emboldened and feels it can get away with a lot more than it would ordinarily. Bush basically handed Al Qaeda everything it wanted on a big silver platter.
Why did you think that? Al Qaeda have repeatedly stated they are happy to have lots of US troops nearby because it makes killing them much easier.
Bin Laden wants US funding of Israel cut.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-02-25 09:32:47)
lol screw buch
Pretty much. It's a win-win for him. The US leave - he doesn't have as big a recruiting tool anymore (let's oust the infidel invaders) and can't readily mount attacks against Americans but he can announce it as a 'great victory', the US stay - he doesn't have far to go get at American soldiers, civilians and business interests and has a great recruiting tool for enlisting newbie terrorists. He also knows that the longer the US stays in the middle east, the rest of the world will view the US in a dimmer and dimmer light.usmarine2007 wrote:
I thought bin laden wanted all us troops out of the ME? So, we leave they win, we stay they win?CameronPoe wrote:
The fact of the matter is that terrorist organisations have grown immensely under Bush and they don't have to go far to cut an Americans head off or detonate an IED under a passing American vehicle. With the US preoccupied in Iraq, Iran is emboldened and feels it can get away with a lot more than it would ordinarily. Bush basically handed Al Qaeda everything it wanted on a big silver platter.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-25 09:36:44)
So he wasn't angry with the fact that US troops were in Saudi Arabia during the 90's?Bertster7 wrote:
No.usmarine2007 wrote:
I thought bin laden wanted all us troops out of the ME? So, we leave they win, we stay they win?CameronPoe wrote:
The fact of the matter is that terrorist organisations have grown immensely under Bush and they don't have to go far to cut an Americans head off or detonate an IED under a passing American vehicle. With the US preoccupied in Iraq, Iran is emboldened and feels it can get away with a lot more than it would ordinarily. Bush basically handed Al Qaeda everything it wanted on a big silver platter.
Why did you think that? Al Qaeda have repeatedly stated they are happy to have lots of US troops nearby because it makes killing them much easier.
Bin Laden wants US funding of Israel cut.
meh
bush hands down. don't like him at all, but i'd rather have bush than clinton...
bush hands down. don't like him at all, but i'd rather have bush than clinton...
Of course he was.usmarine2007 wrote:
So he wasn't angry with the fact that US troops were in Saudi Arabia during the 90's?Bertster7 wrote:
No.usmarine2007 wrote:
I thought bin laden wanted all us troops out of the ME? So, we leave they win, we stay they win?
Why did you think that? Al Qaeda have repeatedly stated they are happy to have lots of US troops nearby because it makes killing them much easier.
Bin Laden wants US funding of Israel cut.
Times change.
Ultimately Bin Ladens motives are that he hates the US for abandoning their organisation and wants revenge. Even if the US withdrew from the ME and cut all funding for Israel, do you think Bin Laden would stop? His recruiting grounds may dry up, but that'll take a while to produce any significant impact.
He wants to kill Americans and make America look bad on the world stage, which he is being remarkably successfull at. More Americans in the ME make America look bad, cost the US lots of money and make it easier for terrorists to kill them.
Bin Laden is successful at what he does because this administration is too dumb to realize that you don't fight fire with fire.
It doesn't really matter though. Unless the Republicans and Democrats are a lot more stupid than I'm assuming, the next president (regardless of party) will get us out of the Middle East.
It doesn't really matter though. Unless the Republicans and Democrats are a lot more stupid than I'm assuming, the next president (regardless of party) will get us out of the Middle East.
anyway Clinton managed to get head in the white house, he is the Hugh Hefner of presidents
Kennedy got the best extramarital lay though.... Marilyn Monroe...
I'd take Bush over Clinton anyday, even with his horrible domestic policies.