Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on January 30, 2002, 09:56:24 AM
-
was not crashing into the WTC one year ealier ....
think about it ...
-
*blink*
I dont get it.
-
HINT:
B_ _ L C L I _ T _ N
:)
-
Yes, I think ole Billy Bob would still be pres after he enacted the Emergency War Powers act, or whatever its called, and the elections of 2000 would never of happened....
Then after he lobbed every cruise missile we had in inventory at the Taliban, he wouldn't know what to do ...
-
Or........Bill could have used the same military and military leadership, trounced the Taliban and al Queda and left office witha 90% approval rating. Then Algore would have won in a walk and GWB would be a full time rancher.........still think O bin screwed up by not attacking sooner?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Or........Bill could have used the same military and military leadership, trounced the Taliban and al Queda .........
Always possible. However, throughout his 8 years he never showed an aptitude for proper use of the military.
At least I sure can't recall an example.
As your hypothesis is possible, so is this one:
He'd have employed the military as his pollsters directed him to, without clearcut objectives other than doing well in the next poll. This may.. or may not.. have accomplished the defeat of the Al Queda/Taliban.
:D
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
-
....Clinton....skip....Clinto n....skip....Clinton....skip. ...
News Flash!
Clinton isn't president anymore, get over it.
We all know whos watch the 9/11 attacks occurred on... Ol' shrub did a FINE job of stopping them didn't he?
If you want the truth of who bears the responsibility write your congressman/senator to repeal EO 13233 so we can know the whole story.
-
Originally posted by weazel
....Clinton....skip....Clinto n....skip....Clinton....skip. ...
News Flash!
Clinton isn't president anymore, get over it.
We all know whos watch the 9/11 attacks occurred on... Ol' shrub did a FINE job of stopping them didn't he?
If you want the truth of who bears the responsibility write your congressman/senator to repeal EO 13233 so we can know the whole story.
Yep, when you cut military, and CIA spending, you reap what you sow. Thanks BILL!
-
"Bill could have used the same military and military leadership"
Dont see how. he cut the military more than in half. He was a draft doger. He was uniformily despised by servicemen.
-
Weazel, Weazel, Weazel...
Weazel, Weazel, Weazel....
..you will vanquish your opponents by behaving like the worst folks on the other side of the argument?
Sure that's what you want to do?
...and remember the other thread?
Officials reveal two earlier plans to get bin Laden (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/03/ret.bin.laden/)
"The CIA trained and armed about 60 Pakistani commandos in 1999[ with plans for them to enter Afghanistan and capture or kill Osama bin Laden, U.S. officials confirmed to CNN Wednesday....
...U.S. officials also confirmed that in 1996, when bin Laden was living in Sudan, the government in Khartoum offered to turn him over to Saudi Arabia for trial. A three-way negotiation went on, with the CIA representing the United States, but the Saudis decided to decline to accept bin Laden, and he was allowed to go to Afghanistan instead....
...In 1998, after the bombings of the African embassies, former President Clinton ordered cruise missiles fired at suspected bin Laden terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Bin Laden survived the attack..."
(Note: IIRC, Bin Laden wasn't anywhere near the camps they hit. The camps were essentially deserted.)
So, Weazel, can we then put all the blame on Clinton for trying and failing 3 times to get Bin Laden BEFORE the 9/11 WTC hit?
Of course not.
Similarly, IMO, it's all a little too complicated and deep to try to hang this on just one man who had been in office 9 months, eh?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Similarly, IMO, it's all a little too complicated and deep to try to hang this on just one man who had been in office 9 months, eh?
No it's not Toad. In 1 year Bush has completely whiped out the :rolleyes: surplus :rolleyes: with money he "spent" on his tax cut that takes effect over the next 10 years, then stops on the 11th year. Thank God the democrats sent everybody money last year to make up for it. He also put us in this recesssion with the same tax cut. Also his economic stimulous package didn't work, hey you know the Senate tried real hard to get it to work too ;) damn that shrub for wasting the Senates time. Let's see, oh yeah how could I forget, he's also started a war with Afganistan to get more oil for us and let's face it, he was behind the 9/11 attacks too. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Man if Bush ever does get caught doing anything wrong/illegal Weazel is going to bust a nut on himself and have to change his pants :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yep, when you cut military, and CIA spending, you reap what you sow. Thanks BILL!
Rip thats the same old tired chestnut RaYguNZ camp used after the Marine barracks was blown up in Beirut, almost 4 years after he took office.
Thats a big part of whats wrong with America today, its ALWAYS someone elses fault.
A real man takes responsibility, those that are less than a man look for a scapegoat.
Hehe Toad, thanks for the slap. ;)
Toad, please write your congressman/senator about EO 13233, I trust you would like to know the whole truth about the Reagan/Bush administration as well as Clintons.
-
uniformly ?
Well Eagler, maybe you should be in service first. I was, smack in the middle of Slick Willie's presidency. Somehow i don't share your blanket views...
remember the hoopla about absentee ballots in FL when the election thing ? Military was supposed to have pitched in 100% in Bush's tent... somehow that never quite matieralized...
Also, this is in contradiction with your statement about welfare reciptients. From my service days i seem to remember a fair share of military families being on food-stamps because they couldn't feed themselves. Now how does the resolve with this "we're all self-sufficient and democats are all welfare folk" reasoning ?
Toad, one more question for you:
Do you remember when Clinton send out troops to Bosnia ?
I seem to remember how everyone was jumping on him for "sending our boys" overseas. He had to bend over backwards with promises of thier timely return. Back then he was "abusing" our sercivement. Today it would be considered good ?
Come on, you fellows are using a double standard, and you know it.
If Bin Laden was such a squeak, how come Bush Sr. didn't take him out ?
Hindsight is always 20/20, ain't it ?
-
Dont see how. he cut the military more than in half. He was a draft doger. He was uniformily despised by servicemen.
The only way this response makes any sense is if you think GWB built the military back up in 9 months, General Franks decided to not serve his country because he doesn't like the fact that the President was a draft dodger and all the service men and women decided to not fight for Clinton because he was uniformly despised.
Does that about cover it?
-
Ski, the Bosnia thing was a total boggle.
It was a "peacekeeping" mission with no real set goals on anything.
"Yeah, ummmmm....go over there, and uhhh....set up a DMZ. That oughta work."
Our boys got stuck playing traffic cops in between two sides ready to kill each other.
Great friggin' plan man.
There's no double standard here. Billy boy didn't know the first thing about proper deployment, nor the reasons for the need of such deployment at all.
Say what you want about Dubya and his daddy- kickin' bellybutton runs in the family it looks like to me.
-
Yeah, FD, I remember it quite well.
As I recall the major controversy was in a few distinct areas.
1. US troops under UN (non-US) command
2. No clear mission statement/goals
3. Using US combat troops as police with inadequate ROE for that mission
That's what I remember... and YES.. I absolutely opposed deploying US troops anywhere/anytime under those conditions.
So what do you remember about it?
And where's the double standard? I opposed the deployment of troops to Beirut under Reagan for 2 of those 3 items. (Item 1 wasn't a player in Lebanon)
And as far as Bosnia, nothing really changed until the Airwar right?
And that was done WITHOUT a UN resolution to authorize it correct? It was a unilateral action by a US led NATO... is that the way we want to do things?
And in the actual execution it was frighteningly VietNam like in many respects. F-16 Wild Weasles launching WITHOUT their full complement of anti-missile missles because we were OUT of missiles...so they sent them with a minimal load to get the SORTIE COUNT up. Sent F-117's with only ONE 2000 pounder each when they can carry TWO 2k's.. just to get the SORTIE COUNT up.
Yeah.. a double standard... when it SUX, I say it SUX... but then when it SUX, I say it SUX. :D
-
Bill Clinton wouldnt trust the military leaderhip to do its job, he and his people would have put much greater limits on our ability to wage war.
-
Billy bob allowed the wardogs to play with their toys for a distraction from his troubles at home ... oh yeah and his legacy :rolleyes:
the yuppies he had in his admin wouldn't know what to do with/in Afgan except maybe sample that country's leading export ....
-
I opposed the deployment of troops to Beirut under Reagan for 2 of those 3 items.
I was in the Army at the time, seeing Ronbo hang our troops out to dry pissed me off, I protested the best way I could....I got out.
When he dies I'm sure hell has a hot tub with his name on it...I hope the Marines who died get to watch him squirm in it. :mad:
-
I'm betting hell has hot tubs with engraved brass nameplates for MOST politicians from almost every nation. :)
Hey, remember the other threads?
You think the 18 Rangers from Somalia will get to watch Clinton and his Sec/Def Aspin writhe in their hot tubs? All for the lack of a few Abrams tanks...
just ribbing ya here Weazel and reinforcing the idea that NONE.. not one.. of the politicians is perfect.. nor will they ever be.
Thank Cod we survive despite the politicos.
-
I say we send in the FDB's with warm beer and week old Burritto's, That should flush Bin laden outta any cave hes in...
NUTTZ
-
>In 1 year Bush has completely whiped out the surplus with
>money he "spent" on his tax cut that takes effect over the next
>10 years, then stops on the 11th year.
Hmmm. You got some ...er... interesting economic therories there Udie. :rolleyes:
Generally, from an economic standpoint, the goverment should NEVER be running a surplus. A surplus means that the goverment has stolen more money from its citizens than it really needs. If a surplus is detected, the best policy is to lower taxes until the surplus has return back to its rightful owners. The WORST thing would be to run a surplus during a recession. Surplus is a sign of excessive taxation. Excessive taxation slows an economy down faster than full flaps and extended gear.
>He also put us in this recesssion with the same tax cut.
Uhhh ok. Can you explain to me in Macro-Economic terms how a tax-cut precipitates a recession? That seems like a unique theory. Maybe you should write up a thesis. :rolleyes:
Wab
-
Wab, Udie is dumping a bucket of sarcasm on Weazel there.
I've done it before too.. to my shame... but I'm on a 13 step sarcasm reform program. It's sorta working.
It's all in good fun, I hope.
-
Opps! :eek:
Sorry Udie.
It's often difficult to distinguish someone’s intentional use of completely irrational, wildy uneducated fantasy logic in the course of sarcasm, from your normal liberal opinion.
My bad. But I'm glad I didn't REALLY unload on you as was my first instinct. I would have REALLY felt silly.:cool:
Regards,
Wab
-
LOL!
was fishing for weazels and I bagged a rabbit instead :D
-
Funny when I hear talking of Clintons cuts in military etc.
I remember Bush stating before how military power outside the country would be cut and lil' cuts in the military..
..and then after WTC he forgot that and instead increased funds to military etc.
So you can't really blame Clinton being the only one.. :>
Anyway, Clinton is better than the monkey.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bill Clinton wouldnt trust the military leaderhip to do its job, he and his people would have put much greater limits on our ability to wage war.
Right... that must be why he appointed a Republican as the Secretary of Defense.