The pointless war

sd123 · #11 (**permalink**) 04-11-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyjude

There are no end of people like you who were absolutely silent when Clintoon made all of his adventures overseas.

Want to talk about costs? How about the cost of the million people that are on the verge of starvation in Somalia? Hmmmm.. .clintoon's cutting and running didn't do much good there.

Of course the Demorats have a long history of cutting and running and leaving the people to die. As long as they think that that are hurting Republicans when doing it then it is fine.

The Vietnamese.

The Cambodians.

The Laotion.

The Afghani.

Another interesting group is the Mosquito Indians who lived and thrived for centuries of repressive right wing governments in Central America but were wiped out in decades by the Marxists.

Clinton did not lower the debt as much as Bush. I don't think that any other pres. will lower the debt as much as bush. Bush has passed Clinton a long time ago.

George O Well · #12 (**permalink**) 04-11-2006, 11:10 AM

"For the record it was a Democratic Congress that cut the funds for those places."

>>>For the record, Nixon ran for office based on "Vietnamization" of the war. "Vietnamization", "Iraqization", "Somalization", who cares? These are all Republican buzzwords for "let's bail."

gangsta9 · #13 (**permalink**) 04-11-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd123

Here is someone with the right idea!

Yes this is someone that knows what their saying

jimmyjude · #14 (**permalink**) 04-11-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd123

Clinton did not lower the debt as much as Bush. I don't think that any other pres. will lower the debt as much as bush. Bush has passed Clinton a long time ago.

What? What the heck are you talking about?

jimmyjude · #15 (**permalink**) 04-11-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

"For the record it was a Democratic Congress that cut the funds for those places."

>>>For the record, Nixon ran for office based on "Vietnamization" of the war. "Vietnamization", "Iraqization", "Somalization", who cares? These are all Republican buzzwords for "let's bail."

Yes. The Republicans are bad. Democrats good. Democrats started Vietnam. Democrats escalated Vietnam.

Bobby Kennedy would have continued his brother's failed policies.

And for the record the Kennedy's aren't really Irish.

a25052 · #16 (**permalink**) 04-15-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd123

At least we dont shoot our lawyers. And what the heck are you talking about? The republicans are spying on different people illeagally. And what is clintoon's?

First off you need to learn to spell. Second what proof have you that Republicans are spying on different people? None. NSA is not Republican or Democrat. Both of those parties are well represented at NSA and they are not spying on different people. They are attempting to listen in on terrorist communications. Oh, maybe you are a terrorist. I can see why you are upset.

a25052 · #17 (**permalink**) 04-15-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veryvegan

All those interventions were supported by lots of Republicans too - and they didn't cost anywhere near 300 billion dollars.

In fact, the Somalia debacle was a decision by George H.W. Bush -
http://www.empereur.com/somaliaus.html

"On December 4th, 1992, exactly a month after Bush’s defeat, he announced that the US was going to deploy a member of military force to Somalia in order to create a safe environment for the humanitarian aid mission. The deployment named Operation Restore Hope began on December 9, it peaked at about 25,800 US troops joined by thousands of other nationalities."

So that was a REPUBLICAN debacle that a Democrat inherited. And I don't think Bush the elder was wrong to want to try to help people who were starving to death.

As for Haiti, I don't see how people who support the war in Iraq can claim that it was wrong to try to intervene to keep Haiti democratic. All the nation-building Bush used to oppose he's now supporting in Afghanistan and Iraq. If anything, we didn't go far enough - sending in troops alone wasn't enough. We needed to support Haitian civil society rather than just decide who was in power.

As for Yugoslavia, Clinton's approach worked. It was a basketcase until U.S. airstrikes along with a strong peace process worked.

http://www.globalterrorism101.com/ar...ugoslavia.html

The point is that the military can only be a minor part of any real effort at peace. Clinton understood that. He didn't spend more than a few billion on each intervention - keeping our money in the surplus and ending deficits.

comparing those wars to Iraq is like comparing a mountain to a mole hill. The facts speak for themselves, Clinton did nothing about the growing terrorist threat unless you want to count firing cruise missiles and hitting a pharmaceutical factory or firing missiles into Afganistan hitting a few camels in the butt.

Bush will be successful in Iraq. The Middle East is being transformed right before your eyes in spite of the shrill ranting of the leftist; but make no mistake, the leftist in this country are the cause of additional casualites in the war on terror. If you don't believe that just listen to what they are saying. It is people like you who give the terrorist heart, make them think they can win, and use your words to stir up more ignorant Arabs to recruit into their ranks.

It use to be United we succede, divided we fail. Make no mistake, you leftist have done a lot of hard labor for the terrorist, but we are going to win in spite of it.

Since no one has asked the leftist to serve in the armed forces, no one has asked for you to defend this country, I simply can't understand why you people give sustenancej to the terrorist. Do you really want us to fail. What is in it for you?