Rhyno, someone who thinks he knows what is going on said this:
While that may be true, jason.....its no revelation to anyone that what Bush does is create terrorists, as well. Its been going on for 30+ years since gov'ts decided to stop negotiating and just kill terrorists. Everytime they kill one, they replace him with one thats more ruthless and psychotic, and create more low level ones who are more of the same.
That is the dumbest crap I have ever heard....lets go back and see what happens when different strategies are used against terrorist....
1979, Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the US Embassy in Iran and took American staff hostage.
Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.
The DAY of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.
1985, Muslim extremists took over a ship and killed a 69 year old American. Reagan ordered a mission to capture the hijackers, conceived by Oliver North. We caught them, turned them over to the Italians....who let them free into Iraq.
1986 West Berlin discotheque was bombed by Muslims, killing an American.
Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, including Qaddafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb by mistake on the French embassy.
1990, Saddam invaded Kuwait...Bush went to war, could have gotten rid of Saddam but a vast majority of Democrats put pressure on him to stop. They demanded that our troops stop at Baghdad, but then after 9/11, they absurdly complained that Bush did not "finish the job" with Saddam.
1993...WTC bombed...Clinton did nothing
1993...18 American troops killed on Somalia...American corpses were dragged through the streets. Clinton responded by ordering troops home. OBL later told ABC news "The youth realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows would run in defeat" That is how you get more terrorist, but being a pussy liberal.
1995...5 Americans killed in Saudi Arabia by Muslims...Clinton did NOTHING
1996...US Air Force housing was bombing in saudi arabia by Muslims...Clinton did NOTHING
1997...Iraq refused to allow UN weapons inspectors in certain areas...Clinton did NOTHING
1998... Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off because the UN said so
1998... US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslims...Clinton did NOTHING
1998... Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time before the grand jury...Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan.
1998....The house prepares to impeach Clinton....Clinton ordered major air strikes in Iraq
Which method works better???
The bottom line is they are evil, and no one should care what they think or what their feelings are...they need to be dead and that is it...
Saturday, June 10, 2006
History lesson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
You forgot...
When the pre-Ramadam bombing of Iraq failed to stop his impeachment, Clinton halted said bombing.
I skipped the USS Cole it looks like too
Just slightly over 3 months after the USS Cole incident, George W. Bush became president. For nearly nine months thereafter Bush did nothing.
Exactly. You showed absolutely nothing to refute my statement. If anything, much like jason, you only strengthened its case with your quasi-argument.
rhyno--
How can people advocate inaction, claiming it makes the problem better, and then in the same breath denounce Bush for inaction?
The illogic of this makes me cringe.
The consistent position is to claim, yes, Bush, like earlier presidents, should have taken totalitarian movements in the Middle East seriously.
The difference between Game and his critics is that he is living in a post-911 world, while his critics live in a pre-911 world as if Bush is the problem.
OK, I understand the switch to being a Con, now. You are incapable of understanding complex situations, and everything needs to be very simple. There is nothing you will understand, so its useless for me to debate this concept with you. Perhaps, when my 3 yr old gets over her shyness I can send her over to try and explain what I am saying.
Jason, I think one of the problems is that you equate any thought, policy, or direction other than Bush's (and I'm being charitable that he has any) with inaction.
Your mindset is if we don't do it Bush's way, it's inaction. If we have a different approach to solving the problem (because we're not making much of any headway with this one) then that is being soft on terrorism.
It's like rhyno says, you seem to have a problem grasping complex issues. Everything is black or white to you. To you everything is Bush's way or it's inaction, soft on terrorism, stupid liberal hippie, love al-Zarkawi, hate America, hate the military bullshit.
It's more complex than that.
It has nothing to do with Bush, it has to do with what you believe..
liberals believe that we should be nice to bad people and maybe they won't be bad anymore, conservatives say punish bad people hard enough and atleast they will be scared to be punished or be in jail or dead...
Bad people arent scared by jail, game. Only good people are. Dont you understand sociology?
Oh really, don't you believe that we make more terrorists when we kill them?
Then what should we do...so all the Dem's who say Bush creates more terrorists when he doesn't have talks with Iran, they are not saying that we need to talk and be nice to arab leaders so they don't hate us...
No Game, you are speaking gibberish about something you apparently do not comprehend. You totally mis-construe what Ron, I and others have written here many times. You apparently cannot comprehend or remember anything more complex than black or white.
You translate everything that we say and everything that Democrats say into very simplistic terms that bear no relationship to the concepts we are saying. You just make them black and white and then throw up a false straw man that is something none of us has ever said.
It is getting tiresome. Ron has left, and I'm getting fed up with repeating myself only to have you turn it into simplistic liberal bashing.
Write something worth debating. Your liberal bashing started smelling like bad cheese weeks ago.
Ditto.
And understand this, Game. A history lesson for you.
It was in Clinton's administration that the 1993 wtc bombing came. How long has it taken for Bush to kill one yahoo called Al-Zurqawi? How many times has he said that Bin Laden was dead, and we know now that he isn't dead even to this day?
Well, Clinton had a different approach. It doesn't take a war every time. All it takes is to make sure they are caught and arrested.
I'd like to see that moron of a prez that we have now do that.
How many killings in Afghanistan and Iraq from illegal war-mongering, and we're just now getting down to Al-Zurqawi (maybe)?
Can we believe that even he is dead?
Did Clinton have to kill anyone?
Nope. And they're still paying for what they did.
Post a Comment