[SPLIT] Worst in Every Way? ~~~~~~ Bush vs. Clinton [Archive]

Scribbler1

05-13-2008, 01:45 AM

I remember during Clinton how libs denounced the hate of Clinton.Yet you make Clinton Haters look like rookies.

You have taken hate to a level noone could have imagined.My, awfully excitable, aren't you? If you consider what I posted "unimaginable hatred", then old horror movies must make you soil yourself.

Let's get real here. First of all, pointing out what ANY president has done wrong isn't "hate". It's observation. And in this case, there is an awful lot to observe. It would seem that most of the COUNTRY has observed these things as well, even a lot of Republicans and FORMER Bush supporters.
And secondly, giving George Bush the discredit he is due doesn't make me a liberal. Obviously, you don't know me, even though you're pretty quick to use the word "liberal" as an epithet. If you DID, you'd see I don't like EITHER political side all that much.By the way we paid for Clinton for the first 6 years of Bush as Bush tried to fix the misteps of Clinton.:madlaugh:And just what WERE those missteps, and exactly what did Bush do to try to fix them?

ptif219

05-13-2008, 02:18 AM

My, awfully excitable, aren't you? If you consider what I posted "unimaginable hatred", then old horror movies must make you soil yourself.

Let's get real here. First of all, pointing out what ANY president has done wrong isn't "hate". It's observation. And in this case, there is an awful lot to observe. It would seem that most of the COUNTRY has observed these things as well, even a lot of Republicans and FORMER Bush supporters.
And secondly, giving George Bush the discredit he is due doesn't make me a liberal. Obviously, you don't know me, even though you're pretty quick to use the word "liberal" as an epithet. If you DID, you'd see I don't like EITHER political side all that much.And just what WERE those missteps, and exactly what did Bush do to try to fix them?

The second largest tax increase in this countrie's history was the reason for tax cuts.

Cutting the military in half which hurt us.Not getting Osama when he had the chance.Selling secrets to China.Taking campaign money from China.Building North Korea a Nuclear power plant.Hows that for a start.

You seem to miss that if you only point out faults and are blind to Bush's good points you are spewing hate.

I notice you ignore the fact that the hate for Bush is much greater then the hate was for Clinton.

Scribbler1

05-13-2008, 02:48 AM

The second largest tax increase in this countrie's history was the reason for tax cuts.

Cutting the military in half which hurt us.Not getting Osama when he had the chance.Selling secrets to China.Taking campaign money from China.Building North Korea a Nuclear power plant.Hows that for a start.I don't agree with every point you brought up, and I've been down this road TOO many times to want to start up a point by point critique of Clinton and Bush.You seem to miss that if you only point out faults and are blind to Bush's good points you are spewing hate.And YOU seem to miss the fact that this thread is about BUSH, and not anyone else. Although every thread inevitably has some topic drift, the OP sets the tone of the thread and THIS one is about Bush. And again, saying things like he is the worst president in modern history is NOT hate, but criticism.
If you want to start a thread comparing Bush and Clinton, go right ahead, but this is veering too far off topic.I notice you ignore the fact that the hate for Bush is much greater then the hate was for Clinton.I miss, or ignore a lot less than you think, apparently. I would say you are right that the hate for Bush IS greater than for Clinton. But, then again, Bush has the war, a tottering economy, record gas prices, record debt, wiretapping and a few other things that Clinton didn't seem to have.

But again, this is off-topic.

ptif219

05-13-2008, 03:19 AM

I don't agree with every point you brought up, and I've been down this road TOO many times to want to start up a point by point critique of Clinton and Bush.And YOU seem to miss the fact that this thread is about BUSH, and not anyone else. Although every thread inevitably has some topic drift, the OP sets the tone of the thread and THIS one is about Bush. And again, saying things like he is the worst president in modern history is NOT hate, but criticism.
If you want to start a thread comparing Bush and Clinton, go right ahead, but this is veering too far off topic.I miss, or ignore a lot less than you think, apparently. I would say you are right that the hate for Bush IS greater than for Clinton. But, then again, Bush has the war, a tottering economy, record gas prices, record debt, wiretapping and a few other things that Clinton didn't seem to have.

But again, this is off-topic.

Clinton had a war and we still have people in Bosnia something Libs seem to ignore.

Bush's economy was as good as Clinton's up to recently even with 911 and its effect on the economy.Clinton gas prices did not go down but up yet you seem to ignore that Gore and the lie of global warming is part of the reason for gas prices.Look at diesel fuel it skyrocketed since the libs and treehuggers demand it be reformulated and sulfur be taken out.

By the way wiretapping and torture were also done under Clinton.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton

Scribbler1

05-13-2008, 03:22 AM

If you insist on trying to deflect criticism of Bush by continually bringing up Clinton, you do it by yourself in this thread. It's the WRONG thread to do it in.

You can blame Clinton for a rainy day but it doesn't have any effect on Bush's record. You can have BAD, and then compare it to WORSE all you like but it doesn't make the BAD any better.

ptif219

05-13-2008, 04:12 AM

Scribbler1

05-13-2008, 11:33 PM

Just like you trying to justify your hate for Bush and saying it is not hate HAHAHAHA

You want to compare Bush and Clinton until you start losing the argument.

Your hate for Bush will not beat my facts on Clinton.HAHAHA?? Can you be just a LITTLE more childish?

Look, I know what I feel about Bush a lot better than you do, and I don't need some junior high psychologist to tell me what hate is. You might THINK having an extremely low opinion of someone is hate, but it isn't. You apparently don't know the difference.

And I don't CARE about your facts about Clinton. I've said that all along, as well as it being of-topic.

ptif219

05-13-2008, 11:39 PM

HAHAHA?? Can you be just a LITTLE more childish?

Look, I know what I feel about Bush a lot better than you do, and I don't need some junior high psychologist to tell me what hate is. You might THINK having an extremely low opinion of someone is hate, but it isn't. You apparently don't know the difference.

And I don't CARE about your fats about Clinton. I've said that all along, as well as it being of-topic.

So you matter and no one else does.You are just one of the millions of liberal elitist in this country but you already know that.

Buck Laser

05-14-2008, 01:42 AM

Just like you trying to justify your hate for Bush and saying it is not hate HAHAHAHA

You want to compare Bush and Clinton until you start losing the argument.

Your hate for Bush will not beat my facts on Clinton.
Son, I don't need to say or do anything to justify my dislike of Bush. I've been a proud purveyor of Bush Derangement Syndrome since 1992.

tecoyah

05-15-2008, 08:38 PM

Just like you trying to justify your hate for Bush and saying it is not hate HAHAHAHA

You want to compare Bush and Clinton until you start losing the argument.

Your hate for Bush will not beat my facts on Clinton.

In many ways Bill Clinton sucked as a President...thing is, George Bush Jr. has proven to be even More sucklyishist in virtually every measurable way.

I don't like the Clinton's....but I don't like Jr. even more.

I just hope someone comes along to fix all this before it's too late.

Scribbler1

05-16-2008, 02:04 AM

I agree. Just because you don't like Bush doesn't mean you love Clinton. And I certainly don't like Clinton, and have said so on many occasions. But between the two, Bush wins the "worst president" award hands down.

And what worries me is he has about seven MORE months to do as much damage as he can. THAT'S what scares me about this guy.

ptif219

05-17-2008, 11:49 PM

Scribbler1

05-18-2008, 03:45 AM

I realize this is a tough concept for you to grasp, but the thread is about BUSH, and NOT Clinton. Bush is not to blame for anything Clinton did and Clinton is NOT to blame for anything Bush did. Understand?

Or, to put it another way, there is NOTHING Clinton could ever do that will make anything Bush did wrong turn into something right. Two different people, two different issues. Bush's mistakes are not Clinton's no matter how desperately you try to make it look that way.

ptif219

05-18-2008, 03:59 AM

Scribbler1

05-18-2008, 04:07 AM

Apparently there is no easy way to get you to understand the SIMPLE fact that this thread is NOT about Bill Clinton, so I won't bother trying anymore.

ptif219

05-18-2008, 04:13 AM

Apparently there is no easy way to get you to understand the SIMPLE fact that this thread is NOT about Bill Clinton, so I won't bother trying anymore.

You can't totally separate 2 presidents because the one coming in must fix what he sees wrong that the previous president did.

ViolaLee

05-18-2008, 04:17 AM

So Clinton cutting the military in half so he could balance the budget had nothing to do with the way we had to fight in Iraq?

We toppled Saddam with Clinton's military. They did a great job. It was Rumsfeld who wanted less boots on the ground than the Generals requested. It was Wolfowitz who said we'd win in a few months and it wouldn't cost more than a few billion. It was Bush who said Mission Accomplished. It was Cheney who wanted the war to enrich himself and his military industrial complex with our tax dollars.

Bush spent Clinton's surplus in 6 months.

Clinton's military was perfectly enough to fight the war in Afghanistan against the terrorists who attacked us. There was no need to go into Iraq. And since the Bush/Cheney admin wanted an Iraq war so badly, since it was a war of choice and unnecessary, if they thought the military was too small, they could have waited until they grew it. But they didn't care about winning a war in Iraq. There was no good reason to fight a war in Iraq. The only reason they wanted a war in Iraq, was to have a war in Iraq. Oil prices through the roof, no bid billions of dollars in contracts to KBR, Halliburton, Carlysle Group, Northrup/Grumman. All military corporations connected to the Bush Cheney families.

ptif219

05-18-2008, 04:35 AM

We toppled Saddam with Clinton's military. They did a great job. It was Rumsfeld who wanted less boots on the ground than the Generals requested. It was Wolfowitz who said we'd win in a few months and it wouldn't cost more than a few billion. It was Bush who said Mission Accomplished. It was Cheney who wanted the war to enrich himself and his military industrial complex with our tax dollars.
Now I am sure none of those decisions had to do with the fact the military was cut in half.
Bush spent Clinton's surplus in 6 months.
Show me the surplus.It was a proposed surplus.another words it was only on paper.

Clinton's military was perfectly enough to fight the war in Afghanistan against the terrorists who attacked us. There was no need to go into Iraq. And since the Bush/Cheney admin wanted an Iraq war so badly, since it was a war of choice and unnecessary, if they thought the military was too small, they could have waited until they grew it. But they didn't care about winning a war in Iraq. There was no good reason to fight a war in Iraq. The only reason they wanted a war in Iraq, was to have a war in Iraq. Oil prices through the roof, no bid billions of dollars in contracts to KBR, Halliburton, Carlysle Group, Northrup/Grumman. All military corporations connected to the Bush Cheney families.

There would have been no need if Clinton had forced the UN to enforce the sanctions they had in place.I guess all the fraud and oil for money was not a problem.

ViolaLee

05-18-2008, 06:27 AM

ptif219

05-18-2008, 03:05 PM

The UN had inspecters in Iraq for years destroying the WMD. The UN inspecters were back in Iraq during 2003 and they were not finding any more WMD. Bush lied when he said Iraq would not let them back in. They UN inspecters were in. UN inspecters, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were interviewed on TV and they told us there were no more weapons to be found, at the same time the Bush admin was claiming aluminum tubes and uranium from Niger would be a mushroom cloud.

There was no need to invade Iraq.

Bush was goung on intelligence that was supported by agencies world wide including intelligence from other countries.

Clinton and most democrats in congress said the same things Bush did in the late 90's.This shows that is what the intelligence agencies world wide were reporting.

lily

05-18-2008, 11:53 PM

Bush was goung on intelligence that was supported by agencies world wide including intelligence from other countries.

If you're going to start a war that American men and women are going to be putting their lives on the line for..........you better be damned good and sure the information you have is correct. It was not.

Clinton and most democrats in congress said the same things Bush did in the late 90's.This shows that is what the intelligence agencies world wide were reporting.

What he had in the late 90's after tons of inspections was not what he had when Bush invaded......they were destroyed.

ptif219

05-19-2008, 01:42 AM

If you're going to start a war that American men and women are going to be putting their lives on the line for..........you better be damned good and sure the information you have is correct. It was not.

What he had in the late 90's after tons of inspections was not what he had when Bush invaded......they were destroyed.

Prove it!!! Thats not what intelligence said and that is intelligence from many countries.

So then in 1998 was Clinton lying or were they all destroyed in 3 years?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

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.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

lily

05-19-2008, 03:16 AM

Prove it!!! Thats not what intelligence said and that is intelligence from many countries.

Prove what? Even you are claiming the intelligence was wrong.

So then in 1998 was Clinton lying or were they all destroyed in 3 years?

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm)

a.. "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks
in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq,
although not of a militarily significant capability."

b.. "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body
of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a
capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "

c.. "The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the
pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical
analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."

ptif219

05-19-2008, 03:23 AM

Prove what? Even you are claiming the intelligence was wrong.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm)

Just saying Bush did not lie but believed the same intelligence Clinton did when he bombed aspirin factories.

lily

05-19-2008, 03:48 AM

Just saying Bush did not lie but believed the same intelligence Clinton did when he bombed aspirin factories.

Ptif........I think you can do a search on all my posts here, I don't think I ever said Bush lied........stupid, dumb, led by the nose, living in a bubble, disregarded intelligence that didn't fit his agenda, did exactely what Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted......but not lie about intelligence. I think the only thing I have said he lied about was him saying he never said whent the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down and his new one about giving up golfing in support of the troops.

..........but no, he did not believe the same intellignece Clinton had....because it was a different time.........there were no WMD when Bush claimed there were.........which as I stated, he should have beend damned sure there was.........there was no big hurry.......he should have been positive before starting a second war.

ptif219

05-19-2008, 04:03 AM

Ptif........I think you can do a search on all my posts here, I don't think I ever said Bush lied........stupid, dumb, led by the nose, living in a bubble, disregarded intelligence that didn't fit his agenda, did exactely what Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted......but not lie about intelligence. I think the only thing I have said he lied about was him saying he never said whent the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down and his new one about giving up golfing in support of the troops.

..........but no, he did not believe the same intellignece Clinton had....because it was a different time.........there were no WMD when Bush claimed there were.........which as I stated, he should have beend damned sure there was.........there was no big hurry.......he should have been positive before starting a second war.

Ok show proof from 1998 where Clinton bombed that all the WMD'S were destroyed.But thats not what the intelligence showed.

Maybe you better wait to see the intell released from when Israel bombed Syria's nuke plant.

Jerusalem post says WMD's from Iraq were found.

lily

05-19-2008, 04:10 AM

Ok show proof from 1998 where Clinton bombed that all the WMD'S were destroyed.But thats not what the intelligence showed.

::....bangs head againt the wall:: I totally give up!

Maybe you better wait to see the intell released from when Israel bombed Syria's nuke plant.

I've seen the phony pictures from when it happened........we discussed it for pages.......I'll see if I can find the thread tomorrow.

Jerusalem post says WMD's from Iraq were found.
Whew! Now we know where they are.......because it makes so much sense to hide all your weapons when you're going to be attacked.......oh and I would expect the Jerusalem Post to say Israel was right in bombing Syria.

ptif219

05-19-2008, 04:27 AM

::....bangs head againt the wall:: I totally give up!

Does that mean you don't have proof that the WMD's were all destroyed.

I've seen the phony pictures from when it happened........we discussed it for pages.......I'll see if I can find the thread tomorrow.

Phoney yet how do the Isreali's benefit from phoney pictures.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207486215610&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday

Whew! Now we know where they are.......because it makes so much sense to hide all your weapons when you're going to be attacked.......oh and I would expect the Jerusalem Post to say Israel was right in bombing Syria.

lily

05-20-2008, 01:12 AM

Does that mean you don't have proof that the WMD's were all destroyed.

Nope......that means I done trying to explain the difference between 1998 and 2001.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday

Oh, is that what they are going to say now.......because here is what they said then (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1284716,00.html).

So let me see what you want me to believe......all of a sudden, after 8 months of keeping this on the QT, Israel is now going to say that they found all the WMD in Syria and not only didn't Sadaam use them on the advancing army to save himself, but he sent them all to Syria.......and then the leaders of Syra were just going to hold on to them, not ever letting anyone know they had them.........and then just give them all back to Sadaam, once shock and awe was done?

ViolaLee

05-27-2008, 06:25 AM

Does that mean you don't have proof that the WMD's were all destroyed

Here's your proof. There are no WMD in Iraq!

tecoyah

05-27-2008, 01:56 PM

Prove it!!! Thats not what intelligence said and that is intelligence from many countries.

So then in 1998 was Clinton lying or were they all destroyed in 3 years?

We placed inspection within Iraq for the expressed purpose of gaining the required Data, and verifying the extent of the weapons programs...these people noted the programs in question, and were in the process of eliminating what was found. Our leadership chose to ignore the findings, and instead look elsewhere for anything that might indicate Saddam had weapons (or was looking for them), what they found in this search proved to be inaccurate.

There may have been weapons in 1998, and in fact we know there were....because we watched as they were destroyed by the very inspection teams Bush then ignored.

Rage

05-31-2008, 05:17 AM

And just what WERE those missteps, and exactly what did Bush do to try to fix them?

I hate straw man posting, but... The gulf war?

Scribbler1

06-02-2008, 02:40 AM

I hate straw man posting, but... The gulf war?Geez. THAT goes back a while, and you apparently didn't read what I was responding to, but I'll answer you anyway.

Ptif219 said: By the way we paid for Clinton for the first 6 years of Bush as Bush tried to fix the misteps of Clinton. And I responded: And just what WERE those missteps, and exactly what did Bush do to try to fix them?So I don't quite see the relevance of "the Gulf War" since THAT was Bush #1's doing and not Clinton's.

Rage

06-04-2008, 03:41 AM

Geez. THAT goes back a while, and you apparently didn't read what I was responding to, but I'll answer you anyway.

Ptif219 said:And I responded:So I don't quite see the relevance of "the Gulf War" since THAT was Bush #1's doing and not Clinton's.

You asked what Clinton's missteps were, gulf war wrap up, if I'm not mistaken.

Scribbler1

06-04-2008, 03:57 AM

You asked what Clinton's missteps were, gulf war wrap up, if I'm not mistaken.You are mistaken. You said the Gulf War, and not the so-called "wrap up", and Bush II STILL didn't "fix" any "missteps" of Clinton's. He just went ahead and made his own missteps.

I never even LIKED Clinton, but Bush makes him seem like a great president by comparison.

In any event, we were talking about BUSH, and no amount of comparing him to others will fix one thing he did, even though some keep trying to do just that.

Phyxius

06-04-2008, 03:59 AM

You asked what Clinton's missteps were, gulf war wrap up, if I'm not mistaken.

Really? Hmmmmmmmmm...

And how many Americans died because of Saddam from the time Clinton took office until the time he left?

How long after he left office did it take for Iraq to claim it's first post Desert-Storm casualties?

Who really screwed the pooch on that one?

Anyone? :ponder:

Rage

06-04-2008, 04:45 AM

Really? Hmmmmmmmmm...

And how many Americans died because of Saddam from the time Clinton took office until the time he left?

How many things did clinton do to prevent a future war? :ponder"

You are mistaken. You said the Gulf War, and not the so-called "wrap up", and Bush II STILL didn't "fix" any "missteps" of Clinton's. He just went ahead and made his own missteps.

I never even LIKED Clinton, but Bush makes him seem like a great president by comparison.

In any event, we were talking about BUSH, and no amount of comparing him to others will fix one thing he did, even though some keep trying to do just that.

What did clinton do exactly that was so much greater than bush? What do you personally think that bush has done that is so wrong? (Don't use the words oil and war in one post if you can help it lol.)

Phyxius

06-04-2008, 05:13 AM

How many things did clinton do to prevent a future war? :ponder"

How about simply not starting one to begin with? This war was COMPLETELY uneccessary. Only a fool would think otherwise at this point. Clinton had the wisdom (or even just the basic pragmatism) to see that a war in Iraq was a complete and utter waste of lives and treasure. Too bad George "WTF??" Bush couldn't see that... :grrrr:

Rage

06-04-2008, 06:59 PM

How about simply not starting one to begin with? This war was COMPLETELY uneccessary.

What war? The war to take out Saddam has been over for quite some time now, we are just there insuring the peace (and American interests) and fighting off insurgencies that would pollute the government and the people after we leave.

It's also not just America, a lot of other countries are there for the same reason we are. I think it was money well spent, and the lives lost there meant something if it can insure happiness in that whole ottoman world.

Clinton knew the American left wasn't smart enough to see 5 minutes past their face, so it was one more thing he avoided doing. It is too bad that William "WTF" Clinton couldn't see that dot dot dot

lily

06-05-2008, 12:50 AM

It's also not just America, a lot of other countries are there for the same reason we are. I think it was money well spent, and the lives lost there meant something if it can insure happiness in that whole ottoman world.

Other countries........you mean the coalition of the willing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PKLhdekJs4

Clinton knew the American left wasn't smart enough to see 5 minutes past their face, so it was one more thing he avoided doing. It is too bad that William "WTF" Clinton couldn't see that dot dot dot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnV4tMvI0ME

Rage

06-05-2008, 06:17 AM

Yes, that is part of the reason hitler was able to raise an army in germany after WWI, no one was willing to enforce the rules.

Phyxius

06-05-2008, 10:52 PM

What war? The war to take out Saddam has been over for quite some time now, we are just there insuring the peace (and American interests) and fighting off insurgencies that would pollute the government and the people after we leave.

Sorry, I didn't notice a single day since we invaded Iraq that combat stopped and then restarted. This is the SAME WAR, five years later. Pretty pathetic strawman.

Let's rehash this in smaller words so it's easily understood:

1) This is the same war.

2) It's BUSH'S war, and his alone.

3) Clinton had nothing to do with it.

4) Insisting he did is not a mark of intelligence.

5) Continuing to insist otherwise is a badge of rank stupidity.

Any questions?

Rage

06-06-2008, 12:22 AM

No questions, other than to say you are incorrect. If it is bush's war alone, how come a good % of the people of America still agree with the war? How come other people are helping in the war?

It's not his, it should be the worlds. But I wish I could agree with you, that it is bush's war alone, so I can take more pride in the fact that our country has a bigger sense of morality (and a bigger sack).

And no, its not the same war, just like WWII wasn't the same war when germany surrendered, then it was just primarily america fighting japan. What that means, is war has objectives, once you complete them, you move on to something else.

The war to get rid of Saddam is over, we are just fighting insurgencies now, they don't have tanks, they don't have nukes, the don't have shit accept explosives and crappy soviet and chines AK's.

And no, I am not saying Clinton had anything to do with it, because he didn't. I blatantly said that he didn't do shit (so to speak) to help the conflict in the middle east. Its ignorant of you to say that all the conflict started when GB was elected, get real.

I am sorry that I am continuing this semantical debate with you, but I mean damn.... :/

lily

06-07-2008, 12:59 AM

No questions, other than to say you are incorrect. If it is bush's war alone, how come a good % of the people of America still agree with the war? How come other people are helping in the war?

Can I have some stats for that........last I read it was around %20.

It's not his, it should be the worlds. But I wish I could agree with you, that it is bush's war alone, so I can take more pride in the fact that our country has a bigger sense of morality (and a bigger sack).

England and Australia are the only 2 countires with troops fighting.

The war to get rid of Saddam is over, we are just fighting insurgencies now, they don't have tanks, they don't have nukes, the don't have shit accept explosives and crappy soviet and chines AK's.

Why are we doing this and not the Iraqis? We did everything we promised them and then some.

Rage

06-07-2008, 01:49 AM

Can I have some stats for that........last I read it was around %20.

England and Australia are the only 2 countires with troops fighting.

Why are we doing this and not the Iraqis? We did everything we promised them and then some.

Its ok to say just england and australia are the only 2 countres with troops fighting, if you don't know any others lol. Don't play with numbers, it doesn't just have to be America's public opinion as well, and I may be talking out of my ass, but there has to be more than 20%.

The Iraqi government is still weak, and it has potential for an insurgency to take it over. Look at it this way, when Iraq becomes a world power, we will leave, because that is prolly what it is going to take.

Phyxius

06-07-2008, 01:50 AM

England and Australia are the only 2 countires with troops fighting.

And both of them are getting out while they can... :ponder:

4Reaganomics

06-07-2008, 02:03 AM

We still have 40 or so thousand troops in Germany because they don't know how to treat people

Why we would not have forces in the middle east to defend ourselves and others against radical islam, which seeks to destroy those in its way the same way Hitler did, is beyond me.

lily

06-07-2008, 02:30 AM

Its ok to say just england and australia are the only 2 countres with troops fighting, if you don't know any others lol.

See post # 41...since then Denmark and Poland have withdrawn.

Don't play with numbers, it doesn't just have to be America's public opinion as well, and I may be talking out of my ass, but there has to be more than 20%.

I was wrong by %5......as for the rest of the worlds opinion on us staying in Iraq.......then they should join in the fighting. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal)

Twenty-five percent (25%) would like to see the troops brought home immediately while 34% say they should be brought home within a year.

Thirty-five percent (35%) say the troops should stay until the mission is complete. That number has ranged from 31% to 39% since tracking began.

More men than women believe the troops should stay in Iraq until the mission is completed. While 45% of men think the troops should remain in Iraq, just 26% of women agree. Half of men (50%) want to see troops home within the year, while 67% of women share the same view.

When it comes to party affiliations, 82% of Democrats think the troops should come home within a year, along with just 28% of Republicans. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of GOP voters believe the troops should remain in Iraq until the mission is completed. Just 13% of Democrats agree.

The Iraqi government is still weak, and it has potential for an insurgency to take it over. Look at it this way, when Iraq becomes a world power, we will leave, because that is prolly what it is going to take.

Well then.......you know what? The Iraqis should be fighting for this. As I already said, we kept all our promises that we made to the Iraqis and then some. We took out Sadaam......even threw in his sons as an added bonus and if that wasn't enough took out Zarcharri too. We gave them 2 elections. We've trained and armed them........it's time for them to stand up. For every soldier of ours that leaves, an Iraqi should take his place, instead of extending our mens tours........they need to be fighting for their freedom, we can fight until the cows come home, but until they want it, nothing is going to get done.

lily

06-07-2008, 02:32 AM

We still have 40 or so thousand troops in Germany because they don't know how to treat people

We have bases in Germany because the Germans don't know how to treat each other???

Why we would not have forces in the middle east to defend ourselves and others against radical islam, which seeks to destroy those in its way the same way Hitler did, is beyond me.

Sadaam is dead, just like Hitler is dead. I don't see how us fighting in Iraq is defending our shores.

4Reaganomics

06-07-2008, 02:34 AM

They didn't know how to treat the jews

Iraq is a central position that allows us to defend ourselves against Iran as well as middle eastern terror

Rage

06-07-2008, 02:36 AM

See post # 41...since then Denmark and Poland have withdrawn.

I was wrong by %5......as for the rest of the worlds opinion on us staying in Iraq.......then they should join in the fighting. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal)

Well then.......you know what? The Iraqis should be fighting for this. As I already said, we kept all our promises that we made to the Iraqis and then some. We took out Sadaam......even threw in his sons as an added bonus and if that wasn't enough took out Zarcharri too. We gave them 2 elections. We've trained and armed them........it's time for them to stand up. For every soldier of ours that leaves, an Iraqi should take his place, instead of extending our mens tours........they need to be fighting for their freedom, we can fight until the cows come home, but until they want it, nothing is going to get done.

Yes, they should. You know what else? America should leave the World's public eye, extract all our troops from around the world. Maybe, leave it like that for a few decades, maybe a half a century (We might go through another depression if we do, but it will change). Then reform the war torn world with a more capitalistic and republic government, with a global free economy.

Unfortunately things don't work that way. I hate to put a damper on this, but this is getting a bit off topic, maybe we should split into a new thread.

lily

06-07-2008, 03:09 AM

They didn't know how to treat the jews

Well........they do now, so if that's the reason, I guess it's time to come home!

Iraq is a central position that allows us to defend ourselves against Iran as well as middle eastern terror

How is Iran going to come and attack us......swim? Also how is fighting in Iraq keeping us safe from terror? Seems if we had soldiers over here protecting out borders, ports and shores we'd be a lot safer.

lily

06-07-2008, 03:12 AM

Yes, they should. You know what else? America should leave the World's public eye, extract all our troops from around the world.

Now you're talking!:thumbsup:

Maybe, leave it like that for a few decades, maybe a half a century (We might go through another depression if we do, but it will change). Then reform the war torn world with a more capitalistic and republic government, with a global free economy.

We are coming pretty close to that depression anyway.......in fact it's the war that's helping us get there quicker.

Unfortunately things don't work that way. I hate to put a damper on this, but this is getting a bit off topic, maybe we should split into a new thread.

That's ok.....I think the thread has evolved and not gone off topic.....besides, I already split it once.:love: