War

[john doe]

Well, I'll admit that JLHyde's posts make me laugh so hard that I nearly come to tears. That dude's got ideas that no sane person would ever come up with.

[Jenda]

I am assuming you meant the Traveler. The Traveler wrote that post, not JLHyde.

[john doe]

No, I meant JLHyde. His posts just crack me up.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 23 2004, 07:34 AM

No, I meant JLHyde. His posts just crack me up.

Yes, me too, but is he funny enough?

[john doe]

funny enough for what? To work on the Kerry campaign? Probably.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 23 2004, 08:30 AM

funny enough for what? To work on the Kerry campaign?

Hmmm, not sure. Wonder how funny one has to be to qualify for that job? Does anybody know?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 23 2004, 06:34 AM

No, I meant JLHyde. His posts just crack me up.

Oh, sorry. I was just wondering because JLHyde doesn't have any posts in this thread.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 22 2004, 02:50 PM

The bottom line is that the Republican don't hesitate to blame anything bad that happened during the Clinton, on Clinton himself. So I have no qualms about holding the Repubs to the same standard.

Tu quoque, just because the other side is sloppy is not an excuse to be so. What blame lies on Bush I give to Bush, what blame lies on Clinton I give to Clinton, what blame rest on others I give to others. I will grant that this is nothing new in politics, people taking credit they shouldn't and therefore receiving blame they don't rightly deserve.

During a time when we needed to fund the Federal Government, Bush did a massive giveaway to the rich and left the Government essentially bankrupt. Now our kids will have the burden of eventually rescuing the economy when the deficit forces higher taxes.

Only thing worse than tax and spend, is not taxing and spending. :)

I'm not sure that the tax cuts by themselves were such a horrid thing (Generally I'd prefer a surplus that can be used for things like social security rather then a deficit, but ideally the government should be breaking even.), but a tax cut, a new department (Homeland Security) and two wars in the same term aren't very fiscally sound,

If I handled my finances the way the government does (And it is the government as a whole not just Bush, congress has to okay these things, though I suppose the War Powers Act kind limits their ability to say, nope, no war for you!) did I'd be bankrupt before I could blink twice.

I can agree with most of what you have said.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 22 2004, 02:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 22 2004, 02:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 22 2004, 03:42 PM

Pure nonsense. Where you got the idea that we would use nuclear weapons in that situation I have no idea. It must have come from one of your "I love nuclear war" friends. Secondly, Clinton was far from weak militarily. Our military was plenty strong to mount any offensive necessary. According to you, our military seems to be doing just fine in Iraq--who did Bush inherit that military from?

When we got into Iraq what did we find? A country that was practically impotent militarily. Iraq, under Clinton went from being a country that rolled over Kuwait and seriously threaten Saudi Arabia, to a country that could barely spit on us when we rolled in this time. How did that come about? Well, pal, it came about under Clinton, unless you were sleeping during the nineties.

As to your wishful thinking about WMD's,.....well, that's what it really is at this point since nobody can find them. You might as well claim that Saddam had a stash of intercontinenal ballistic missles aimed at every city in the US, because the evidence for both is nonexistant.

Again you avoid the facts. Bush told the Iraqis we'd "respond in kind" if they used WMD. Have you really forgotten? Did you not watch the news at all last year? It makes more sense than your "black helicopter" friends...

Clinton was a weak military leader. I didn't say the military was weak, he was (you should read more closely), and no one feared him. That's obvious. He was a creampuff militarily, only bombing Iraq once, when he was going on trial as a diversion.

As far as weapons, I don't know what Iraq you're talking about, but the one I was in had plenty of firepower. Your statements on their military are extremely inaccurate. Check the web site for a few pictures. Yes, those are missles. You don't seem to have a clue about the equipment they had. Talk about sleeping through the 90's, and the last couple of years...

I can only assume you haven't seen the link to the UN's findings on the WMD, or you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements about them. Here it is again if you're having trouble finding it: AGAIN

Anyway, your posts are entertaining, if not accurate at all...

Sorry but it is you that is flat wrong about Clinton being weak militarily. He used the military when it made SENSE to use it, such as in Bosnia and Kosovo. What he wasn't was RECKLESS, as Bush is. I think you mistake bravado for strength. Sometimes strength shows up best as restraint.

Also, if you think that Bush would have been allowed by our "establishment" to unleash nuclear weapons on Saddam simply because he used say gas or biologicals on our troops you are grossly out of touch with our foreign policy. Of course, if Bush really is in charge of our foreign policy, no telling what stupidity he is capable of.

Bush has YET to initiate any military action that has been the unqualified success that Clinton had in Bosnia. We're still "mousing" around in Afganistan, yet to get Osama, the Taliban is still functioning there, and we are stuck in the quagmire of Iraq, and yet to show ANY lasting success. The country is in a worse mess than when Saddam was in charge, and shows little sign of improvement in the near future.

Thank you Bush supporters---four more years of this kind of nonsense and we may be able to kiss the economy and world stability goodbye for a generation.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 22 2004, 05:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 22 2004, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traci@Sep 22 2004, 06:12 PM

You're father may have said, "We're in Viet Nam, and we have to see it through, no matter what you think of our reasons for going in."

And he would have been right.

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Outshined. Staying in Vietnam would have been an outrageous mistake. Even the people who perpetrated that war agree. I guess some people will NEVER learn, no wonder you think the Iraqi war is justfied. You probably think the Vietnam war was.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 05:45 PM

I base it on experience, dear.

What experience---are you going to tell us you served in Vietnam too?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 23 2004, 05:41 PM

Sorry but it is you that is flat wrong about Clinton being weak militarily. He used the military when it made SENSE to use it, such as in Bosnia and Kosovo. What he wasn't was RECKLESS, as Bush is. I think you mistake bravado for strength. Sometimes strength shows up best as restraint.

Also, if you think that Bush would have been allowed by our "establishment" to unleash nuclear weapons on Saddam simply because he used say gas or biologicals on our troops you are grossly out of touch with our foreign policy. Of course, if Bush really is in charge of our foreign policy, no telling what stupidity he is capable of.

Bush has YET to initiate any military action that has been the unqualified success that Clinton had in Bosnia. We're still "mousing" around in Afganistan, yet to get Osama, the Taliban is still functioning there, and we are stuck in the quagmire of Iraq, and yet to show ANY lasting success. The country is in a worse mess than when Saddam was in charge, and shows little sign of improvement in the near future.

Thank you Bush supporters---four more years of this kind of nonsense and we may be able to kiss the economy and world stability goodbye for a generation.

More entertaining but inaccurate posts from Cal. I have yet to meet a military member who felt Clinton had any kind of strenth militarily. He was a weak leader who did not have the respect of the military. That is the fact.

You call Bosnia an "unqualified succeess", when we are still there dealing with it (I believe you called it "mousing around"), and we killed more civilians than the imagined "genocide" did. Reality check. And you thought those campaigns made sense?

The fact is, which you are avoiding, that we threatened nuclear force if Iraq used WMD, and it was an effective deterrent.

Your facts on Iraq are also sadly inaccurate (but I'm used to it). Iraq is not in "worse shape" than when Saddam was in charge. That fantasy remark makes me wonder if you know anything at all about the country, past or present.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 22 2004, 05:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 22 2004, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 22 2004, 06:51 AM

Best president? Let's see......under his watch....

1. Stock market crashes

I wonder just how intellectually honest Cal is in the discussion - al lright, you got me; I don't wonder. But let's see if he wants to post more honestly.

Let's start with item number 1:

Cal says that under Bush's watch the stock market crashed. For that matter there was a 7.9 earthquake in the Alaskan interior (Nov 5 2002). Cal mentions the stock market but not geological activity because he IMPLIES that President Bush has some cupability in the crash of 2000-2002.

Note: Cal calls it a crash - other's call it a downturn, still others call in a bear market while some call it a correction. Whatever it was, it doesn''t rank among the 10 worst downturns in recent history.

So please Cal, tell us all, What did Bush do to cause, promote, or sustain the stock market trend and activity you are referring to and how would, oh, say John Kerry, (or Mr Father-of-the-Internet, Al Gore) have made it better...

If I can sift through all your irrelevant verbage and find a decent question----let's see, you want to know what responsiblity Bush plays in the down turn in the stock market and subsequent economic malaise?

Let's see, the economy goes to hell on Bush's watch, but it is Clinton's fault. The economy during the Clinton years did almost nothing but improve, but when it went to hell under Bush, it was Clinton's fault?

Now, let's just say, arguendo, that the initial economic down turn WAS Clinton's fault. Bush, in all of his Republican economic wisdom, would then be expected to know how to remedy all the "damage" that Clinton had done to the economy.

So what does Bush do when it became clear that the averge Joe is going to be experiencing economic woes, and the federal surplus is going to be needed more than ever? He orchestrates a massive federal giveaway to the RICH, and squanders the federal surplus in the process, leaving Social Security in danger of bankrupsy. He gets us into a really stupid war, ignoring the real threat, Al Queda, and uses 911 to advance his own ideology of taking care of his corporate buddies.

Thank you Georgie, how can we thank you enough.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 23 2004, 05:45 PM

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Outshined. Blahblahblahblah.....

Actually, you know nothing about me, or the subject at hand. You are background noise on this thread. Your posts are filled with inaccuracies and personal opinion on subjects of which you know little or nothing.

What experience---are you going to tell us you served in Vietnam too?

No, just Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. Two wars so far, and I've lost friends in both. What wars have you served in , Cal? If you want to insult my service to this country, and me while your at it, I expect you to have served as honorably in combat.

So where did you serve?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 22 2004, 05:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 22 2004, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traci@Sep 22 2004, 06:52 PM

That's nice.  And please don't call me "dear," you patronizingly pathetic patriot.

It's a euphemism, kid. And "pathetic" coming from you is practically a compliment, considering the knowledge you've demonstrated of everything else.

Grow up a little, eh?

Traci--don't be intimidated by Outshined's put downs, he has very little insight into how things really are in the world, and I think he knows it and and tries to cover it up with condescending remarks to people like you.

If he is young enough to have been in the military in Iraq, then he is probably too wet behind the ears to understand the lessons history has taught us. Anyone who thinks that there was any chance we were going to use nuclear weapons on Saddam needs to get his head examined.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler@Sep 22 2004, 09:27 PM

Point #1:  No WMD’s in Iraq?  The brilliant logic says that if Saddam had WMD’s he would have used them.  And of course everyone knows he did not hide any weapons but fought the USA with everything he had.  This logic will keep our country safe and insure no WMD’s from Iraq will ever find their way into the hands of teariest.

Point #2: No connection to teariest in Iraq.  Iraq had no military plans except for national defense - they conformed to the mandates of the UN and there was no misuse of the oil for food funds.  Current reports that the UN was involved in billions going towards weapons in Iraq just are not true?  Lets bet our security and the lives of our children on that one.

Point #3: 9/11 and the reason to go to war in Iraq were the result of  intelligence blunders.   And what great president cut the budget, pulled out all the ground intelligence for exclusive surveillance by satellite creating the worse intelligence decline ever in the history of our country?   Was this the same president that fired the Naval commander for going and getting a downed American piolet that took photos of the mass graves in the former Yugoslavia - that just happened to implicate the side the president said we must help?  (A real president would have honored both)  Or the President the bombed an aspirin factory to draw attention away from his lies about sex with a white house aid and said he did it because he could?

Yes by George if you can’t trust one political party by darn you can trust the other.   Pardon me, is my sarcasm showing?

The Traveler

Your sarcasm may be showing, but so is your ignorance.

In point, what Clinton did in Kosovo and Bosnia turned out to be a very big success. To INFER that the bombing you mentioned was to divert attention away from his personal problems is simply to fall into the logical error of "simultaneous occurance proves causation".

By the way what is a "teariest"---and I thought my spelling was bad!

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:12 PM

Traci--don't be intimidated (more idiotic blather)

Anyone who thinks that there was any chance we were going to use nuclear weapons on Saddam needs to get his head examined. (more stuff Cal has no clue about)

Again with the adolescent insults. Since you can't hold your ground in a debate, being so short on facts, you resort to childish insults and pretend worldliness.

I have a feeling I have a much greater insight into "how things are in the world" than you do, little fellow, having experienced a great deal more of it. I'm surprised you're able to make such remarks about condescension without having the gods of hypocrisy strike you down.

Yes, I've served in Iraq, twice, in two wars, as I've said. The question is still, where did you serve, Cal?

I'm waiting...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 23 2004, 04:10 AM

Cal asked why Iraq didn't use WMD on the US troops in the war if he had them. For the same reason he didn't use them in '91.

I was doing some redng on the Carnegie Foundation's Intelligence site, and this quote caught my eye:

there was no history of Saddam's Iraq using WMD against enemies capable of inflicting unacceptable retaliatory damage. Though Saddam had used chemical weapons against helpless Kurdish villages and Iranian infantry in the 1980s, he did not use them against U.S. or Israeli targets in the 1991 Gulf War.

Regarding your quote from the Carnegie site:

Well then, genious, I guess we never did have to worry about Saddam's WMD since he NEVER, under your logic, would have used them on us at all since we could clearly anhialiate him at will. So why did your hero Georgie make such a point of insisting that Saddam had WMD's? We were clearly in no danger (imminent or otherwise) of his using them on us. Point, match, game.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 23 2004, 04:33 AM

And one of the most notable experts mantioning Syria as a destination for Iraq's WMD is none other than David Kay, head inspector of the US program. Article

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

Claimed.....claimed? And he knew this because..................

[Outshined]

Wasting time with your belittling remarks and childish insults.

Where and when did you serve, Cal? If you want to preach to me like you have been, tell me about your war experiences first.

[Outshined]

*sigh*

You can't have a discussion with someone this immature. My 9-year-old has better control.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 23 2004, 05:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 23 2004, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 23 2004, 05:41 PM

Sorry but it is you that is flat wrong about Clinton being weak militarily. He used the military when it made SENSE to use it, such as in Bosnia and Kosovo. What he wasn't was RECKLESS, as Bush is. I think you mistake bravado for strength. Sometimes strength shows up best as restraint.

Also, if you think that Bush would have been allowed by our "establishment" to unleash nuclear weapons on Saddam simply because he used say gas or biologicals on our troops you are grossly out of touch with our foreign policy. Of course, if Bush really is in charge of our foreign policy, no telling what stupidity he is capable of.

Bush has YET to initiate any military action that has been the unqualified success that Clinton had in Bosnia. We're still "mousing" around in Afganistan, yet to get Osama, the Taliban is still functioning there, and we are stuck in the quagmire of Iraq, and yet to show ANY lasting success. The country is in a worse mess than when Saddam was in charge, and shows little sign of improvement in the near future.

Thank you Bush supporters---four more years of this kind of nonsense and we may be able to kiss the economy and world stability goodbye for a generation.

More entertaining but inaccurate posts from Cal. I have yet to meet a military member who felt Clinton had any kind of strenth militarily. He was a weak leader who did not have the respect of the military. That is the fact.

You call Bosnia an "unqualified succeess", when we are still there dealing with it (I believe you called it "mousing around"), and we killed more civilians than the imagined "genocide" did. Reality check. And you thought those campaigns made sense?

The fact is, which you are avoiding, that we threatened nuclear force if Iraq used WMD, and it was an effective deterrent.

Your facts on Iraq are also sadly inaccurate (but I'm used to it). Iraq is not in "worse shape" than when Saddam was in charge. That fantasy remark makes me wonder if you know anything at all about the country, past or present.

I'm not surprised that your "military" buddies didn't think Clinton was tough enough. I have no doubt that your military hawks would just love to bomb the hell out of everybody and everything. Big surprise. I'm just glad none of you are in charge of foreign policy. It is one reason why the civilian government has control OVER the military. Allowed to run wild, the military would do what all military governments have done in the past---foment war on their neighbors every chance they get.

The bottom line to all of this is only history will tell the final story on all of this. Just as history told the final story on Vietnam--which was, when you stick you nose into another country's problems, you had better know EXACTLY what you are doing or you are going to end up with major egg on your face. How would you like yours, sunny side up or over easy?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 23 2004, 06:34 PM

I'm not surprised that your "military" buddies didn't think Clinton was tough enough. I have no doubt that your military hawks would just love to bomb the hell out of everybody and everything. Big surprise. I'm just glad none of you are in charge of foreign policy. It is one reason why the civilian government has control OVER the military. Allowed to run wild, the military would do what all military governments have done in the past---foment war on their neighbors every chance they get.

It's because of men like those that you are able to sit hunched over your keyboard, snarling at your spittle-flecked monitor as you hurl more invectives at me. The military pays for America's freedom, even for ingrates like yourself.

Nice and comfortable, aren't you? Thank the military.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 23 2004, 05:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 23 2004, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 23 2004, 05:45 PM

Now I KNOW you've lost your mind, Outshined. Blahblahblahblah.....

Actually, you know nothing about me, or the subject at hand. You are background noise on this thread. Your posts are filled with inaccuracies and personal opinion on subjects of which you know little or nothing.

What experience---are you going to tell us you served in Vietnam too?

No, just Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. Two wars so far, and I've lost friends in both. What wars have you served in , Cal? If you want to insult my service to this country, and me while your at it, I expect you to have served as honorably in combat.

So where did you serve?

Just how does grubing around in the dirt of the Persian Gulf make you an expert on military-political philosophy? Thank you for protecting me from Saddam's massive military. I feel so much better that Saddam's mammoth navy is not going to be landing on the southern california beaches any time soon. By the way, I never asked you to go grub around in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iraq. So why should I care that you did?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Sep 23 2004, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Sep 23 2004, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Sep 22 2004, 05:52 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 22 2004, 06:51 AM

Best president? Let's see......under his watch....

1. Stock market crashes

I wonder just how intellectually honest Cal is in the discussion - al lright, you got me; I don't wonder. But let's see if he wants to post more honestly.

Let's start with item number 1:

Cal says that under Bush's watch the stock market crashed. For that matter there was a 7.9 earthquake in the Alaskan interior (Nov 5 2002). Cal mentions the stock market but not geological activity because he IMPLIES that President Bush has some cupability in the crash of 2000-2002.

Note: Cal calls it a crash - other's call it a downturn, still others call in a bear market while some call it a correction. Whatever it was, it doesn''t rank among the 10 worst downturns in recent history.

So please Cal, tell us all, What did Bush do to cause, promote, or sustain the stock market trend and activity you are referring to and how would, oh, say John Kerry, (or Mr Father-of-the-Internet, Al Gore) have made it better...

If I can sift through all your irrelevant verbage and find a decent question----let's see, you want to know what responsiblity Bush plays in the down turn in the stock market and subsequent economic malaise?

Let's see, the economy goes to hell on Bush's watch, but it is Clinton's fault. The economy during the Clinton years did almost nothing but improve, but when it went to hell under Bush, it was Clinton's fault?

Now, let's just say, arguendo, that the initial economic down turn WAS Clinton's fault. Bush, in all of his Republican economic wisdom, would then be expected to know how to remedy all the "damage" that Clinton had done to the economy.

So what does Bush do when it became clear that the averge Joe is going to be experiencing economic woes, and the federal surplus is going to be needed more than ever? He orchestrates a massive federal giveaway to the RICH, and squanders the federal surplus in the process, leaving Social Security in danger of bankrupsy. He gets us into a really stupid war, ignoring the real threat, Al Queda, and uses 911 to advance his own ideology of taking care of his corporate buddies.

Thank you Georgie, how can we thank you enough.

Cal,

When you are arguing idealogically you make no sense. In this case you maintain that Bush caused the stock market downturn (or correction) because... uh, sarcastically speaking, Clinton caused it and Bush failed to correct it.

One thing is for certain - you aren't an economics teacher.

Again I ask, how did Bush cause or maintain the stock market downturn - not generally, specifically, what did he do or fail to do that should have been done or not done?

Those who haven't the least clue about how the economy works, and specifically how the stock market functions, think that it is just a matter of who is president - like you are a Clinton groupie so it must of been him who caused the upturn during his presidency and then when the market corrected itself, which ALWAYS happens when it is overpriced, it wasn't a natural response to over-valuation and corruption in major corporate ethics - by golly it was George Bush and, judging by your post, the proof is that YOU THINK he got us into a stupid war.