Obama and the younger generation

He launched cruise missiles at bin laden. Intervened in Kosovo. Caught a lot of flack for it.

Dr. Hess wrote: Uncle Bill did it be devastating our military and pretending that outside problems didn't exist.

You mean the trimmed down military that has kicked ass whenever they've been given a clear military objective?

I still think we could save military dollars by further shifting away from a "land tank battle in Europe against Russia" model.

GlennS wrote: He launched cruise missiles at bin laden. Intervened in Kosovo. Caught a lot of flack for it.

You mean the cruise missiles that hit the pharmaceutical factory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

Jensenman wrote:

GlennS wrote: He launched cruise missiles at bin laden. Intervened in Kosovo. Caught a lot of flack for it.

You mean the cruise missiles that hit the aspirin and baby formula factories?

it was done in the name of national security, so it's OK

ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

GlennS wrote: He launched cruise missiles at bin laden. Intervened in Kosovo. Caught a lot of flack for it.

You mean the cruise missiles that hit the aspirin and baby formula factories?

it was done in the name of national security, so it's OK

Yup. The Sudanese still say it wasn't a chemical warfare factory. If you measure the current unpleasantness in both Iraq and Afghanistan the same way, it was all done in the name of national security as well. It seems the difference is that WJC's attacks were OK 'cause he's a Dimmycrat.

Hmmm... one of the reasons for the strike into Afghanistan was hoping that bin Laden would be killed. So WJC missed, OBL escaped and was really pissed off; I think this means WJC was ultimately responsible for 9/11.

Jensenman wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

GlennS wrote: He launched cruise missiles at bin laden. Intervened in Kosovo. Caught a lot of flack for it.

You mean the cruise missiles that hit the aspirin and baby formula factories?

it was done in the name of national security, so it's OK

Yup. The Sudanese still say it wasn't a chemical warfare factory. If you measure the current unpleasantness in both Iraq and Afghanistan the same way, it was all done in the name of national security as well. It seems the difference is that WJC's attacks were OK 'cause he's a Dimmycrat. Hmmm... one of the reasons for the strike into Afghanistan was hoping that bin Laden would be killed. So WJC missed, OBL escaped and was really pissed off; I think this means WJC was ultimately responsible for 9/11.

I blame hillary for not providing love, "in the mouth."

watch them fangs girl.....

Jensenman wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

GlennS wrote: He launched cruise missiles at bin laden. Intervened in Kosovo. Caught a lot of flack for it.

You mean the cruise missiles that hit the aspirin and baby formula factories?

it was done in the name of national security, so it's OK

Yup. The Sudanese still say it wasn't a chemical warfare factory. If you measure the current unpleasantness in both Iraq and Afghanistan the same way, it was all done in the name of national security as well. It seems the difference is that WJC's attacks were OK 'cause he's a Dimmycrat. Hmmm... one of the reasons for the strike into Afghanistan was hoping that bin Laden would be killed. So WJC missed, OBL escaped and was really pissed off; I think this means WJC was ultimately responsible for 9/11.

your joking right?

Jensenman wrote: It seems the difference is that WJC's attacks were OK 'cause he's a Dimmycrat.

Actually, I think the difference was, that he did not commit us to a prolonged occupation of a hostile foreign country before considering the scope of that task.

If you want to blame someone for getting OBL ticked off, I'd say the main responsibility there goes to the people who trained his men, funded them, set them against the Soviets, and then abandoned them.

Yeah, I figgered putting blame on WJC would start a E36 M3storm 'mongst the board libs. But it's OK to crap all over the Repubs faced with making difficult decisions which didn't always work out the way we'd like.

OBL is torqued up about US 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia, which he considers sacred ground being defiled by infidels (us).

The Taliban are the remnants of the mujaheddin you refer to, Salanis. Let me ask you this: how would our leaving Iraq now be any different from us training and equipping the Taliban and then abandoning them?

Think it through carefully.

The difference would be to get the rest of the area to step up to handle the problem. It's going to be a mess really no matter what. Every day it goes on, the bigger the mess is going to get. Planning to keep doing what we are doing now for another 100 years isn't going to be any better of a solution.

It is OK to dump on the Republicans for for making difficult ( or as I would say, stupid ) decisions that worked out about like everyone said they would.

PS, as Al Franken liked to say, how about how Clinton's military did in Iraq? The military that Rumsfeld had was the one that existed after 8 years of Clinton as the Presidient. It was the one that ended the genocide in Kosovo, that intervened in Somalia pretty effectively, the one that ended Iraq's WMD programs by a successful cruise missle attack, etc, etc.

Jensenman wrote: Yeah, I figgered putting blame on WJC would start a E36 M3storm 'mongst the board libs. But it's OK to crap all over the Repubs faced with making difficult decisions which didn't always work out the way we'd like. OBL is torqued up about US 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia, which he considers sacred ground being defiled by infidels (us). The Taliban are the remnants of the mujaheddin you refer to, Salanis. Let me ask you this: how would our leaving Iraq now be any different from us training and equipping the Taliban and then abandoning them? Think it through carefully.

Actually I lean democratic and REALLY liked WJCs style... and think you are 100% right that OBLs attack was brought on by him.

It is not like all this training and planning started because they KNEW Dubya was going to be in charge.

Just like somewhere out there there is a bigger plot brewing than the 9/11 attacks.

I really think if we are going to seriously defeat terrorism we need to get our borders in order, get the f out of these puppet regimes and get ready for hell to break out in Central America.

BTW, even if we stay in Iraq all we are doing is training our enemies to defeat us. I made a statement about how GW is going to start building US states out of Afghanistan and Iraq so that we can go after Iran. I am not kidding, look at the map.

Yeah, well, it turns out that there really wasn't a genocide in Kosovo. There were no mass graves. There was a lot of cases of locals dragging already dead people around for pictures. Oh, and we're still there.

Uncle Bill threw a couple missles at OBL. Then while they were on the way, he called the Pakistanis and told them he was flying missles over their country. The Pakistanis promptly called OBL and told him there were missles on the way. OBL split. OBL later was quoted as saying you could do whatever you wanted to the US becase all we'd do is sue them and throw a couple of missles their way. Uncle Bill also refused OBL when one of the other countries there offered OBL to the US on a silver platter. Hind sight is 20:20, so we can't really blame Uncle Bill for all of 911. The problem had been building for decades, back to Reagan and Carter. Probably back to Joseph and his half brothers if you want to get historically correct.

Oh, and that Somalia thing worked out really well too. No, you can't have tanks. Tanks look mean and we don't want to look mean, so Hillary says no tanks. Have you watched Blackhawk Down? I knew a guy that was in that. Last I heard, he still isn't right. I think shooting the armed children and women charging his position probably did a bigger number on him than the neck wound he took. And then what happened? BIll pulls everyone out and walks away. Thanks Bill.

And by the way, in Iraq, "everybody" said there would be a hundred thousand dead Americans as the Iraqis fought to the last man for Bagdad and unleashed their chemical weapons (which they still had). Picking and choosing which "everybody said" you want to remember isn't quite fair either.

Also, people have been fighting in Afganistan since time began. It will never end. I don't know why, that's just what happens there. We should just make sure that the Afgans don't let shiny happy persons like OBL set up shop and what they do with their chunk of desert after that is up to them.

Let's also not forget that the first attempt to blow up the WTC was made on Slick Willie's watch.

Jensenman wrote: Yeah, I figgered putting blame on WJC would start a E36 M3storm 'mongst the board libs. But it's OK to crap all over the Repubs faced with making difficult decisions which didn't always work out the way we'd like.

Do you see us crapping all over Bush Sr. or Reagan?

I met a now US soldier who's entire family was killed there. Parents, siblings, everyone. Tell him there was no genocide. I am probably misusing the term since there wasn't the kind of organized extermination going on like the Nazi's had. But saying it was nothing is like denying the Holocaust.

The myth of Clinton refusing to take OBL is that, a myth.

Clinton pulled out of Somalia six months after Black Hawk Down with no casualties during that time. He pulled out because of pressure from the Republicans. Clinton was no saint but knock him for the stuff ( or those ) he did, not stuff he didn't.

Afghanistan I'm told was the most west leaning country in the area before their troubles started in the 70's.

Dr. Hess wrote: Yeah, well, it turns out that there really wasn't a genocide in Kosovo. There were no mass graves. There was a lot of cases of locals dragging already dead people around for pictures. Oh, and we're still there. Uncle Bill threw a couple missles at OBL. Then while they were on the way, he called the Pakistanis and told them he was flying missles over their country. The Pakistanis promptly called OBL and told him there were missles on the way. OBL split. OBL later was quoted as saying you could do whatever you wanted to the US becase all we'd do is sue them and throw a couple of missles their way. Uncle Bill also refused OBL when one of the other countries there offered OBL to the US on a silver platter. Hind sight is 20:20, so we can't really blame Uncle Bill for all of 911. The problem had been building for decades, back to Reagan and Carter. Probably back to Joseph and his half brothers if you want to get historically correct. Oh, and that Somalia thing worked out really well too. No, you can't have tanks. Tanks look mean and we don't want to look mean, so Hillary says no tanks. Have you watched Blackhawk Down? I knew a guy that was in that. Last I heard, he still isn't right. I think shooting the armed children and women charging his position probably did a bigger number on him than the neck wound he took. And then what happened? BIll pulls everyone out and walks away. Thanks Bill. And by the way, in Iraq, "everybody" said there would be a hundred thousand dead Americans as the Iraqis fought to the last man for Bagdad and unleashed their chemical weapons (which they still had). Picking and choosing which "everybody said" you want to remember isn't quite fair either. Also, people have been fighting in Afganistan since time began. It will never end. I don't know why, that's just what happens there. We should just make sure that the Afgans don't let shiny happy persons like OBL set up shop and what they do with their chunk of desert after that is up to them.

GlennS wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Yeah, I figgered putting blame on WJC would start a E36 M3storm 'mongst the board libs. But it's OK to crap all over the Repubs faced with making difficult decisions which didn't always work out the way we'd like.

Do you see us crapping all over Bush Sr. or Reagan?

I see the libs crapping all over Shrub because he got handed a HUGE problem that's been years in the making. Then I point out the lib's shining light (WJC)'s hand in that ongoing problem and the libs get all wound up. Just like I thought.

Dubya made a statement way back when that the war on terrorism was not winnable by conventional measurements of winning wars and that there was no way to tell when it might end. All the politicians and the news media started screeching because he had the balls to speak the truth. Then (and this is the biggest mistake he has ever made as a politician) he backpedaled on that statement, rather than doing the Churchill thing ('all I can promise you is blood, toil, tears and sweat'). That is the single biggest problem with his approval ratings, he didn't stick to his true beliefs.

Then, typical of the ADD addled masses, everybody wants to shoot the messenger.

Clinton TRIED to do something about OBL. He tried and he failed. At least he tried. Bush did nothing till the twin towers fell. Then he went after Afghanistan and OBL. Bush then went into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with international terrorism on false pretenses. I think most people’s frustration lies with the whole Iraq thing.

And the war on terror is a lot like the war on drugs or the war on falling from perilous heights. It’s mostly B.S.

If Clinton had done nothing to try and take out OBL a major Rep. talking point would be how Clinton did nothing to get OBL who we knew to be a threat.

Jensenman wrote: Yeah, I figgered putting blame on WJC would start a E36 M3storm 'mongst the board libs. But it's OK to crap all over the Repubs faced with making difficult decisions which didn't always work out the way we'd like. The Taliban are the remnants of the mujaheddin you refer to, Salanis. Let me ask you this: how would our leaving Iraq now be any different from us training and equipping the Taliban and then abandoning them?

I am not of the opinion that we should pull out. We are committed to this prolonged occupation. It sucks, and it's painful, but we need to finish what we've started. I'm pissed off because anyone who took time to analyze the history of Iraq would realize that this situation is exactly what was going to happen.

We never should have started it in the first place. Has everyone forgotten that there were U.N. weapons inspectors sent to Iraq to see if they did indeed have WMDs, and that we cut their hunt short so we could launch our attack? Before we did, they were finding evidence that Hussein had in fact disabled his weapons programs and was most interested in domestic control. We acted so hastily that we didn't have a plan for what we would do after deposing Hussein. Our plan was "we'll be embraced as saviors and democracy will spring forth" even though any historian could have told you that Iraq was carved out of European colonization and it forced at least three disparate groups of people together who wanted nothing more than to kill each other, and have only been prevented from doing so through tyrannical dictatorship.

I am not opposed to our campaign in Afghanistan. We need to get rid of the group of people who attacked the WTC. That attack was totally unrelated to our campaign in Iraq.

GlennS wrote: Clinton TRIED to do something about OBL. He tried and he failed. At least he tried. Bush did nothing till the twin towers fell.

Oh, boy. (rubs hands together.) Maybe, just maybe, that's because the vast majority of intel gathered on Clinton's watch completely missed the planning by OBL and Associates.

Then he went after Afghanistan and OBL. Bush then went into Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with international terrorism on false pretenses. I think most people’s frustration lies with the whole Iraq thing.

Sigh. Go back and check WJC's (and Hillary's, and John Kerry's, and Ted Kennedy's) quotes re: Saddam during the reign of WJC. I'll wait right here while you Google your azz off and see that they all supported removing Saddam and that they believed he had WMD.

And the war on terror is a lot like the war on drugs or the war on falling from perilous heights. It’s mostly B.S.

Hmmm... dope wars get people killed and so do terrorists. Yeah, I see a connection. Dope sales help fund terrorism in some parts of the world. Yep, all BS. Go ahead and ignore the injury possible from falling from a height, if you like.

If Clinton had done nothing to try and take out OBL a major Rep. talking point would be how Clinton did nothing to get OBL who we knew to be a threat.

Can't speak for other conservatives, but I do think WJC tried to do something about OBL, he just didn't try hard enough. Hey, what about this: if 9/11 had happened on his watch and he had decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and the same situation we have now had developed, would you give your liberal shining star a free pass?

I thought so.

Jensenman wrote: Can't speak for other conservatives, but I do think WJC tried to do something about OBL, he just didn't try hard enough. Hey, what about this: if 9/11 had happened on his watch and he had decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and the same situation we have now had developed, would you give your liberal shining star a free pass?

I would have had no problem with him invading Afghanistan. Hey look, I don't for Bush.

I would have had a problem with him invading Iraq and committing us to a prolonged occupation without any solid foundation other than "he has WMDs". Especially if Clinton cut short inspectors who were trying to determine the existence of those weapons or not. Oh yeah, and even if he had WMDs, how does that threaten us when he clearly didn't have a sufficient delivery system?

I suppose you could argue that they might get sold to terrorists, but most terrorist groups didn't like Sadam's oppressive and highly secular regime. That also doesn't show how he was more of a threat than any other dictator with chemical weapons. Hell, we're at more threat from all of the old weaponry that the old Soviet Bloc "looses".

my old prof Kaylani used to say...

Saddam is crazy, Binladen is not. Even if Saddam wanted to do business with Binladen, Binladen wouldn' tbe stupid enough to do business with him.

Yes, WJC supported removing Saddam. Like Bush Sr. though he wasnt stupid enough to get us stuck in a prolonged occupation to do it.

No one here has anything against afghanistan. We do have problems with iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism till we invaded.

The war on drugs is a rediculous failure and thewar on terror will be as well with people like Bush Jr. at the helm.

I have heard one valid argument for deposing Saddam. It went like this:

Saddam is the only thing holding that country together. His most likely successors are his sons, who are bat-E36 M3 crazy. When he dies from old age or assassination, the country will be plunged into civil war. The most likely result is that Iran will swoop in and occupy things. It would be better for us to preempt this by deposing Saddam and setting up a stable governing system that is favorable to the U.S.

Now, I don't agree with that 100%, but it's a scenario worth examining and preparing for. That's not the story we were fed. That also doesn't strike me as what our leaders were actually thinking, because there was clearly no rebuilding strategy.

Oh yeah, and even if he had WMDs, how does that threaten us when he clearly didn't have a sufficient delivery system?

Sufficient delivery system for what? To reach America? How about his neighbors? Do they not matter?

He was working on enriching uranaium so that he could build a bomb. Israel took out his reactor, so he had one of those at one time and would have again. He built and delivered poison gases. What more do you want? Did you want to give him time to buy the weaponry to be able to reach here? How much more costly would the war have been then?

It wasn't a matter of whether we would have to do something about him, it was only when. Sr. was criticised for not doing enough. Jr. is criticised for doing too much. What is the middle ground?

Sr. proved that if you didn't cut off the head the snake would still live and strike back.

Once you got rid of Saddam, then what do you do, sit back and see what petty dictator fills the void?

I am not sure they are ready for a democracy, but what else do you do?

Well i would start by not waisting a massive part of your military capability when your supposed to fighting some sort of war on terror.