Pack up and leave Iraq?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
I suppose peacekeeping in Bosnia with no casulties, defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Iraq was all performed by our gutted military. Oh and by the way the plan to invade Afghanistan that was used after 9/11 was drafted under Clinton because of the U.S.S. Cole attack and embassy bombings. It was something they were thinking of pursuing (to get Bin Laden) but didn't want to have Bush inherent a war that may or may not have been necessary (bad form to hand over an administration in that state).

Some things for you to think about.

Please, Madelien Not-at-all-Bright and her abysmal foriegn policy efforts is proof positive that Clinton on wolrd affairs was a dismal failure.

He not once but twice had OBL on the platter and refused to take him.

And as for Bosnia, Clinton's tacit refuseal to take ANY sort of leadership role, and instead hand it over to NATO and or the UN is further proof of his failure.

So before you start waving the "Clinton was ready to kick some butt flag", come back to reality and quit smoking the same stuff The Boy is.

Clinton's foreign policy, or more accurately his acute lack of it, is what led without a doubt to more attacks on US interests by terrorists.

If instead of trying to cover up his lack of morals by randomly flying cruise missles into highly dubious targets in the middle east, and instead actually showed some leadership, the war on terrorism would have been prosecuted YEARS earlier.

And your idea that Clinton didn't pursue terrorism like he should have been, because the Clinton administration didn't want to get Bush into a bad spot is hogwash.

Clinton did not, and does not care about ANYONE other than himself. PERIOD.

So save the nonsense that Clinton suddenly decided to be magnanimous and altruistic towards Bush. Who, by the way, Clinton would have ZERO idea was going to succeed him. As far as Clinton knew, or assumed at that time, AlGore was going to win the election. Or try to steal it outright.

[shartley]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
I don't know if "in your world" you open your eyes at all, but if you did, you'd realize that none of our freedoms our at stake in Iraq.

We have not fought a single just war since WWII and I do not feel I owe anything to those who have KILLED people for an unjust cause.

You have just earned the Tool of the Day Award...... and with that, good day.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by shartley

You have just earned the Tool of the Day Award...... and with that, good day.

that all you can muster, not an actual response?

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Please, Madelien Not-at-all-Bright and her abysmal foriegn policy efforts is proof positive that Clinton on wolrd affairs was a dismal failure.

He not once but twice had OBL on the platter and refused to take him.

And as for Bosnia, Clinton's tacit refuseal to take ANY sort of leadership role, and instead hand it over to NATO and or the UN is further proof of his failure.

So before you start waving the "Clinton was ready to kick some butt flag", come back to reality and quit smoking the same stuff The Boy is.

Clinton's foreign policy, or more accurately his acute lack of it, is what led without a doubt to more attacks on US interests by terrorists.

If instead of trying to cover up his lack of morals by randomly flying cruise missles into highly dubious targets in the middle east, and instead actually showed some leadership, the war on terrorism would have been prosecuted YEARS earlier.

And your idea that Clinton didn't pursue terrorism like he should have been, because the Clinton administration didn't want to get Bush into a bad spot is hogwash.

Clinton did not, and does not care about ANYONE other than himself. PERIOD.

So save the nonsense that Clinton suddenly decided to be magnanimous and altruistic towards Bush. Who, by the way, Clinton would have ZERO idea was going to succeed him. As far as Clinton knew, or assumed at that time, AlGore was going to win the election. Or try to steal it outright.

Yes and no. His idiotic policies like bombing Iraq were the result of increasing backlash against the US in the Arab community. However, the invasion/occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan will only make the US more unsafe from real threats, which are terrorist attacks.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by gam-e
spelling is my worst subject, but that didn't stop me from getting a 1470 on my sat. forgive my igriGeous spelling errors. im going to cut off my left thumb now as punishment.

Dion

Good for you! I mean the high score on the SAT and not the incredibly gross idea of cutting off your thumb!

We need more intelligent men like you to write stories like this:

http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3accae7d.517,.html

That discuss truth versus propaganda and BS.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by paintballguy429


Yes and no. His idiotic policies like bombing Iraq were the result of increasing backlash against the US in the Arab community. However, the invasion/occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan will only make the US more unsafe from real threats, which are terrorist attacks.

I can't agree with your final assesment bud, it's my opinion that these terrorist bastards understand nothing but overwhelming direct force.

They have absolutely zero interest in negotiating peace agreements, they have no country to fight or defend for. The only thing they understand is that the other guy,(that being US) can kick the crap out of them at will.

Current policy aside, we sure as hell did that in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Showing terrorists that we are ready willing and able to go after them on THEIR turf on our terms is what is going to ultimately keep us safe on our own land and interests.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


I can't agree with your final assesment bud, it's my opinion that these terrorist bastards understand nothing but overwhelming direct force.

They have absolutely zero interest in negotiating peace agreements, they have no country to fight or defend for. The only thing they understand is that the other guy,(that being US) can kick the crap out of them at will.

Current policy aside, we sure as hell did that in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Showing terrorists that we are ready willing and able to go after them on THEIR turf on our terms is what is going to ultimately keep us safe on our own land and interests.

Yes, but that aside, the terrorists do have motives, they aren't just murdering for the sake of it. These motives include policies like the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and our irresponsible support of Israel. I AM NOT in any way supporting attacks like 9/11 and attacks against innocent Israelis, however, when evaluating foreign policies like the invasion of Iraq, you must honestly ask yourself, is this going to make the US safer, as Bush says, or put more innocent Americans in harm's way?

[Konigballer]

shartley, I know you have first hand service experience so I'm not going to argue that you have'nt seen the effects of the clinton era budget cuts. However, I believe the Pentagon boys are more at fault for the effects of those cuts than the clinton administration. I'm no Bill defender, he was as full of bs as any other politician, but the military was given a set budget and had the job of deciding were and how that money would be spent. Most importantly, they decide on WHAT they are going to spend it on. Thats the most important thing. They want all their fancy toys and billions of dollars are funelled into several advanced weapons projects to give them that. Often this is at the expense of cutting the funding of basic, although far less glamorous, needs for the grunts.

We have'nt fought a conventional army since Korea and yet we have insited for decades on being equiped and trained with the latest and greatest in military hardware in order to fight and defeat a conventional army in a war that, thankfully, has'nt come.
The military heads have chosen to funnel money into areas of their own priority without ever adapting to the changing face of conflict.

Right now alot of our guys on the frontlines of Iraq cant get that new Interceptor body armor that can save their life, but the airforce is re-equipping its fighter force with the multi million dollar F-22's..and that is so they can replace th "aging" F-16s and F-15's, when only a handfull of other nations have fighters anywhere on par with the current versions of those planes.

Thats the military's fault, and its always cut corners on the little guy like that. In WW2 the military funded the building of the atomic bombs but sent thousands of our guys to their deaths in the wholly inferior M4 Sherman. In Vietnam, the military had all the money in the world to fund a huge fleet of costly B-52s. However, my dad couldnt get a rifle that wouldnt jam in a firefight, early M-16's, until many guys had died and the brass "got all the bugs worked out" of the weapon.

One of the most recent examples of this kind of funds misusage is the death of the state of the art "Crusader Advanced Field Artillery System". This projected $475 million in developement planned sucessor to the Paladin system, that thankfully got its plug pulled before it could be put into production, would have been useless to our guys in Iraq. No one had aparently wondered what use a weapon sytem that could sling a 155mm shell 40km+ would be when our guys are fighting small moving bands of guerillas in built up cities and villages.

This is just how the military operates. I think the cuts in budget that you saw first hand were much the fault of those in the Pentagon than with any administration. Sorry for the rant

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Konigballer
Sorry for the rant [/B]

It wasn't a rant. It was a very good post. That is my point. It isn't "all Clinton's fault". It isn't "all Bush's fault". I did not intend to make Clinton as the military ideal in my earlier post. I'm just saying can't we accept that it isn't as simple as "the guy before me screwed everything up." Or "once we get the guy we have in office out everything will be better."

I certainly don't believe that. I am not a Bush fan (everyone who reads my posts can figure that out). Still I don't blame Bush for everything. The economy is very complicated and I don't think that the Clinton administration can take credit for the huge expansion in the 90s. Of course the Bush administration can't be blamed for a down turn that was already starting before they came to office. It might of had something to do with a booming technology sector that grew too quickly!!!!

Regardless some people will post that Clinton inherited a strong economy that held out just long enough to be screwed up by him so Bush could save the day. Nevermind that the economy in 1993 when I graduated wasn't doing so well. I took Japanese because they said Japanese would be the future language of business. Of course it didn't turn out to be.....

[davidb]

LOL! 330 billion a year isn't enough when we have people at home starving? Yeah, that's only about 18,000 AN HOUR since jesus was born. All for what? A killing machine of brainwashed thugs.
------------------
We have not fought a single just war since WWII and I do not feel I owe anything to those who have KILLED people for an unjust cause.

Paintballguy429, much as I hope that Army or another mod bans you for your comments, and as much as they are undeserving of a response, I am also aware that people with a mentality like yours somehow think that when somebody is too disgusted to converse with you, you have won the debate.

Killing machine of brainwashed thugs? You don't owe anything? You make me sick, quite frankly. I'm willing to bet that aaron_mag and Collegeboy, each of whom is much more intelligent, reasonable, and likeable than you have turned out to be, both lost any respect they had for you at reading those statements, along with the rest of the board. Do you know where military officers get their educations? At America's COLLEGES! That's right, those havens of liberalism are turning out the leaders of those so-called "brainwashed thugs".

While you sit back and pay lip service to all the poor and oppressed because you get your rocks off on shouting "damn The Man!" (when's the last time you made a donation, or helped out someone who needed it??), the "killing machine" is, by its very presence, protecting them. Do you think that if America had no military at all, we could rely on the good will of the rest of the world for our well-being? The military's protection is rarely provided in the form of wars that it fights. It comes in the form of attacks that it prevents!

Here's something else you might not have thought of - Did it ever occur to you that many of those poor people that you think you're so concerned about broke OUT of the circle of poverty by joining the military?

The military trains our cops, electricians, engineers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, and all manner of public servants. Many people get the money to go to college (thus becoming productive members of society) through military programs!

Next time think before you go making a sweeping generalization about a group of people that you benefit from, without putting anything in yourself. Whether you believe it or not, you damn well owe something, but it's your good fortune that nobody is likely to come to collect.

[shartley]

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Its a fact that the army was more than ready to handle the combat phases of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hell it's a fact that a few well armed boy scout troops could have routed the Iraqis! They were such master fighters after all!

As for the song, it is a good song that captures alot of emotions after 9/11. It was written for 9/11, not Afghanistan nor Iraq. Again I can look at it capturing the spirit of the time, and not as policy.

As for the Dixie Chicks, they were playing up to the crowd, not protesting. It evolved into that, but they started by pandering to a foreign crowd. Otherwise their big "political" statement might have been more then," Just to let you know we are embarrassed that the President is from Texas".

I only boycott the chicks because their music sucks!

Come on now. You have to let these patriotic songs surface during wars/tragedies otherwise Lee Greenwood (Proud to be an American) would have no career!

[davidb]

Banned for your opinions? No. For flat out insulting a good percentage of the board in such a fundamental way, perhaps. I can accept your apology, but I was fuming at the time of my last post. I had written, but I guess deleted before posting, that I didn't really think that what you said was worthy of a ban, though I would not have been the least bit sorry to see you go. I'm going into the Navy in February, and it's not terribly often that somebody tries to insult my intelligence, ya know?

Listen, regardless of whether or not you approve of the way the military is utilized by politicians, taking out your anger on the line animals is in no way fair. Nobody joins the military so that they can bomb peoples homes, unless you're talking about one of Saddam's palaces. Even if I agreed with your position against the war in Iraq, what you're saying now is no better than when the antiwar nuts (as opposed to those who were reasonably opposed and/or protesting it) spat on the soldiers returning from Vietnam.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by paintballguy429


dude wtf. i post a song with one word that you don't like. the song is a lot less harmful than the militaristic murderous messages in 1stdeadeyes trashy hick music.

WTF yourself! I listed a disclaimer. I said I do not listen to country music!

As for those on the boards that do, maybe you need to show a little tolerance and not call them trashy hicks, eh?

[Restola]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
LOL! 330 billion a year isn't enough when we have people at home starving?

Yeah...throwing money at the starving has always fixed things. Look at the trillions we've spent so far fighting poverty. In fact, the problem is almost gone!

Typical liberal response.