The Clinton/Muslim connection

[Eagler]

as much as I'd like to point fingers, I'm tryin to refrain as it really doesn't matter at this point .. our bed is made and we have to lie in it.
 Best to look forward .. together.
 Maybe the past will be just that, the past..

now back to the jesse jackson thread ..  

[Toad]

The problem, Dowding, is that the world is not black and white.

Hindsight is always said to be "20/20", although it rarely is. Even in hindsight, situations are incorrectly evaluated and wrong lessons "learned".

Yeah, we supported some questionable people/regimes.

Now let anyone try to make the case that for any bad people/regimes we supported there was another obvious, lily-white, totally perfect and humanitarian person/regime we could/should have supported instead.

No one can make that case; it simply isn't that black and white. The people we opposed were no saints. In most cases they were much worse; in some cases they were a little worse; in other cases there was very little difference to choose from -  98% bad vs 96% bad.

Ever hear that old phrase "it seemed like the thing to do at the time" when someone explains their actions? You hear it a lot in aviation. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

Sort of like those passengers on UA 93 that tried to take back the airplane. Seemed like a good idea at the time; still had tragic consequences.  

Point is the guy there on the scene at the time has to do the best he can. If it works, he's a hero. If it doesn't there's always plenty of folks that couldn't (or simply wouldn't) have done a d*mn bit better to point out that he's a goat.

Sure, the US can be bashed for making some bad policy decisions. The Bashers always seem to be the guys who won't get involved at all in trying to make the world a "better place". They just want to B*tch from the bleachers.

We're the target simply because we WE'RE the ones that tried. I've seen posts that say "Why aren't the terrorists mad at the ___________? The US could learn from the _________."  Because the bloody ______________ NEVER get out front and get involved in difficult problems. That's it, pure and simple.

In any event, past is past. The situation changed Sept. 11, 2001. The terrorists made it to the big time.

They won't stop now. Success breeds further endeavor to an even greater degree than failure. They' be emboldened by their success. They brought the US economy to its knees with the capture of three aircraft.

They have no rules of engagement; any tactic is fair. We are going to try and maintain "normal" "civilized" ROE.

You tell me who has the edge here.

If any of you folks are sitting back hiding a smile at Uncle Sam finally getting his comeuppance... think about this:

They used to say when the US economy caught a cold, the rest of the world caught the flu.

Well, our economy has pneumonia now and one more strike will give us congestive heart failure as well.

Beyond that, once they deal the Great Satan a death blow they'll start looking for another bogeyman to struggle against. They have to... it's the only thing that gives reason to their existence.

[Ripsnort]

Busy morning for me, just came on..concur with Toad.

LOL Popeye!  

[Hangtime]

Toad when yer ready to cash out and head for the action gimmie a call.

I'll come with yah.

<S!>

[Ghosth]

Right behind ya Toad! Couldn't agree more.

[Toad]

Hang, the fediddleers told me I was too old.  
The Sgt. that initially answered the phone actually chuckled!

Some of them sunsabeaches were probably still on their mom's teat when I already had 2000 hours in -135 airframes.

[Dowding]

All very well, Toad, and I agree with the majority of it. But why doesn't that line of thought apply to Clinton as much as any other President? I just can't see how one President is more culpable than another over this, going by your argument.

Selective accountability?

 

The problem, Dowding, is that the world is not black and white.

Deja Vu, pal, Deja Vu. I was saying the same thing to you in past discussions - most notably abortion, I think. Didn't seem to go down too well back then... perhaps some worlds are black and white, and others are a bit more grey?

 

If any of you folks are sitting back hiding a smile at Uncle Sam finally getting his comeuppance...

Come out and say it pal - I mean it. Don't hide behind tranparent accusatory generalisations. I prefer to get to the point.

From what you have written, it seems critism of the US foreign policy must be 'US bashing'. I don't think it is as simple as that.

Firstly, US foreign policy has been supported and aided in its execution by NATO countries for 50 years; in Afghanistan, the UK sold Blowpipe shoulder launched SAMs to the Mujahideen (sic) alongside the US selling of Stinger missiles.

Secondly, the difference in opinion over how to proceed. Understandably, most Americans want immediate action over this. But I think the most important thing is to learn from the past, examine the mistakes and prevent them from happening in the future. Especially where this Northern Alliance is concerned.

Ripsnort wrote:

 

Busy morning for me, just came on..concur with Toad.

Really? It seems to me he disagrees with the point your thread makes.

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

[Toad]

Go back and read the Abortion threads again, Dowding.

You've totally forgotten the position I took, or else you've confused me with someone else. As, if I am not mistaken, you have done before and had to apologize.


Second item, I haven't mentioned Clinton in this thread. You're responding to my comment regards that old "the US supported bad guys" observation, I take it? Clinton has nothing to do with that generalization with respect to what I said.

The Uncle Sam comment? I did say it exactly as I meant it. Those who are enjoying this aren't going to enjoy it very long. The "tanking economy" will spread world-wide pretty quickly. So, smile big, smile fast, whoever you are. Because the economic downturn is headed your way too.

I didn't have anyone at all in mind when I wrote that. That's why I said "If any of you folks". If I meant you, I'd have said "Dowding". However, if you feel it was pointed at you.. .that would be YOUR problem, right? After all, you're the only one who actually knows how YOU feel.

Lastly, once again my post was simply a reaction to the "US supported bad guys" slam that continually goes around.

If we did, it wasn't because we wanted "bad guys" to be in power or whatever. It's because we made a mistake.

My bottom line is still this: Name another country which in it's period of hegemony tried to help more folks than we have tried to help. Name a country that routinely went to war for OTHERS and then rebuilt the vanquished countries. Basically name a country that has given as much as we have in blood and treasure so that OTHER countries could choose their own form of government and lifestyle.

Yeah, we made mistakes. But we were out there TRYING. We were on the field, doing our best.

[Dowding]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are/were totally against abortion at any stage in the pregnancy. A 'black and white' stance, if you will. My point was/is that black and white is separated by grey.

Second point. You didn't need to mention Clinton. Your argument was that essentially the leadership was trying to do its best at that particular time, with the information at hand, at that particular time. My argument is that why should that be applied selectively to just Clinton, and not previous Presidents? It was a question, as in discussion.

The Uncle Sam comment? I'm a bit wary of saying anything that might be construed as gloatful, especially after a thread I started a couple of weeks ago went a bit awry. Hence the reason I might think you were accusatory in your comments, especially since I haven't seen anybody posting anything that would remotely fit your description. I haven't seen any 'hidden smiles' on this board.

Lastly, my point wasn't a 'slam'. It was an observation questioning the logic of singling out one President from any other as being culpable.

[Toad]

You are wrong; that is not what I said. I'll allow you to research the thread to find the correct stance.

Second point.. then you are directing the question to the wrong person. That is not a position I took. I did not discuss Clinton.

Point three... If I had intended it for you, your name would have been in there. I'm not known on this BBS for being subtle in that respect. If you're wary.... your problem, not mine.

You can find that "US supported bad guys" argument in lots of threads in the O-club. Lots. Before and after 9/11. Aimed at any and all of our 20th century leadership. Wasn't aimed at you in particular. Same as above.

[Cabby44]

Hey, you Leftist-Lib Bozos:

The USA(and other nations)are about to "support, aid, and arm" ANOTHER group of Afghan rebels.  To fight the Afghan rebels CURRENTLY in power, the Taliban.

What else can you do with a bunch of murderous, backward, cut-throats who lack the "sensibilities" you Leftist-Libs so admire??  Invite 'em to your next poetry-reading??  Or perhaps your next "bed-in" for "Peace"?

GeoPolitics is over your heads, Leftist-Libs.  Go back to granola-crunching and leave the job of fighting Terrorists to the grown-ups....

Cabby

[Nash]

Woohoo awesome post Cabby! You tell them!

Toad.. I don't want to butt in here but it's a bit confusing. Rip made a very specific post about Clinton's involvement. Dowding asked two specific questions regarding the singling out of one President's culpability, to which you replied "The problem, Dowding, ..." and now you say you weren't directing your post to him, weren't really answering his questions and not even discussing the original post?

And for the record, it was Bush Sr. and maybe Reagan that armed both the Afgans and the Iraquis. Might have seemed like good ideas at the time, but Ripsnort's pointing the finger at Clinton is redicuclous.

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

[Ripsnort]

Hmm, I posted an article pointing out connections, then added "Comments"...Looks like I'm getting them!  

And I might add its " Judicial Watch" pointing the finger, and Ripsnort diligently reporting the fact
 

While Bill Clinton's IRS pursued his personal
            enemies with great enthusiasm - auditing Billy
            Dale, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita
            Broaddrick and dozens more - America's enemies, it
            seems, got a free pass from the same agency.

            That's the claim from the legal watchdog group
            Judicial Watch, which has filed a complaint with
            IRS Commissioner, Clinton holdover Charles
            Rossotti, charging that Osama bin Laden's al Qaida
            network, Hamas and others continue to use
            tax-exempt U.S.-based charities to bankroll
            terror, unencumbered by even the hint of an audit.

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]

[Nash]

Ripsnort, Judicial Watch is nothing more than an organization set up in 1994 for the sole purpose of throwing lawsuit after lawsuit at the Clinton administration.

 http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases.asp

Saying that his administration audited some people and didn't audit the terrorists (or something) is stupid. Now that Bush is in office, they have nobody to sue, so it looks like they're STILL gonna target Clinton for what he *didn't* do now...

And faithfully reported by Newsmax.    

God the ignorance gets pretty thick in here sometimes.

Oops! Scratch that part about them having nothing to do now that Bush is in office:

"78.   JUDICIAL WATCH'S ACTIONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM, After the attacks on America of 9/11/01, Judicial Watch has declared war on terrorism. "

Yay - go getem boys. What a joke.

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

[Ripsnort]

"God the ignorance gets pretty thick in here sometimes."

Funny, when some of the "right of center" folks point this out in regards to mainstream press, we are the ignorant ones then too!