Bush vs Hillary in 2004

[ProMinx]

So when Hillary (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/5/1/124155) runs next year, who would you vote for? Re-elect George W. Bush or put another Clinton in the White House?

Before you place your vote here...please read the following article:

Steven Brill: Hillary Fabricated 9/11 Records

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton had her staff fabricate records of meetings and phone calls to families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to burnish her image as New York's leading politician on 9/11 issues, the author of a new book on how U.S. officials dealt with the aftermath of the attacks charged Sunday.

"I think [Sen. Clinton] has begun every statement she's ever made in her life about the families of the victims by saying she's met innumerable hours with the families of the victims," Steven Brill, author of the new book "After: How America Confronted the September 12 Era," told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg.

To support Mrs. Clinton's claims of 9/11 victim service for his book, Brill said her staff tried to persuade him that she worked overtime to help, providing "an elaborate story, with an elaborate subtext of memos and phone calls - a long, long story."

But, says the author, "None of it turned out to be true. ... They gave me documents and phone calls and things like that which just plain never happened."

Brill, who defended the Clintons throughout the Monica Lewinsky impeachment scandal, said that efforts to mislead him began after the former first lady got word he was writing his 9/11 book. She actually sought him out at the Ground Zero ceremony commemorating the first anniversary of the attacks. "I hear you want to talk to me about your book," he recalls her saying.

"We had this discussion which she insisted be off the record," Brill said. But he added, "She did follow up in one non-off-the-record conversation, urging me that the person responsible for aid to New York City was not [Sen.] Chuck Schumer but Hillary Clinton."

Brill said he was astonished that Clinton would go to such lengths to fabricate a phony record of 9/11 service "all in the cause, actually, of shooting down Chuck Schumer getting a bunch of pages in a book."

"It sort of takes your breath away when you think about it," he told Malzberg.

The author detailed the saga of one family in particular, the Cartiers, who lost a relative in the Twin Towers collapse.

"This family had tried repeatedly to get Hillary Clinton to meet with them," Brill said. "And always the staff said: 'Write up a memo. We don't meet with any families unless they write to us first and tell us what they want to meet about.'"

"They said to me, the Cartiers - and these are not, you know, people who are political - that the only time families can meet with Hillary Clinton is if it's at a press conference."

Meanwhile, said Brill, Sen. Schumer took time out on a Sunday to meet with the Cartiers - "no reporters, no cameras, no nothing."

The former publisher of "Brill's Content" magazine said that then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Schumer worked to give the Cartier family access to Ground Zero and to Fresh Kills, the Staten Island recovery site, so they could search for their relative's remains.

The former Clinton defender also cast doubt on the authenticity of an account offered by Chelsea Clinton, who told reporters after the attacks that she was so close to the Twin Towers collapse that she feared for her life.

"There are people on Schumer's staff who say that Chelsea kept moving south [toward Ground Zero] the more the press kept reporting that [Schumer's daughter Jessica] really was at Stuyvesant High School," just five blocks away from Ground Zero, he said.

Of Sen. Clinton's attempts to garner praise for helping 9/11 victims, Brill said, "What stunned me is that one person would try to steal away the credit from the other person, especially when everything I was hearing from the families is that Schumer" had helped far more.

[nickel]

puhleese - she is our Senator right now. take her somebody, anybody!

[Nija]

Neither.

I think there are some other viable (canada)tes right now. Hopefully some of them won't become sleezball lifetime politicians (the worst kind).

[Joshua]

If hil had the cajones to challenge Bush, she'd be crushed by his super powered schlong!

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by SnotRocket
If hil had the cajones to challenge Bush, she'd be crushed by his super powered schlong!
:hmm:

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by SnotRocket
If hil had the cajones to challenge Bush, she'd be crushed by his super powered schlong! Actually, I think you got that backwards. :D

[ProMinx]

Yeah...I can't really believe that anyone elected her in New York. What were those guys thinking? It isn't like she has ever really lived there, so she can't acurately represent their interests. Beyond that (in the words of my diehard liberal girlfriend)..."Hillary is a jackass...but then so are most politicians" and I have to agree on both counts. The best thing Clinton could have done was to say something simple like "We, the people of New York, greatly appreciate the effort and time thant Senator Schumer has put into helping our citizens, our families, our state through this tragedy." Oh well...

ProMinx

[gear02]

Hmm...I need to retract my vote after that...

hey i got a good idea, everyone write ME in as a candidate!

:D

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by nickelback
puhleese - she is our Senator right now. take her somebody, anybody!


C'mon... take one for the team! Don't pawn her off on someone else... or worse yet... on ALL of us!


:P



Dave.

[nickel]

Originally posted by ProMinx
Yeah...I can't really believe that anyone elected her in New York. What were those guys thinking? It isn't like she has ever really lived there, so she can't acurately represent their interests. Beyond that (in the words of my diehard liberal girlfriend)..."Hillary is a jackass...but then so are most politicians" and I have to agree on both counts. The best thing Clinton could have done was to say something simple like "We, the people of New York, greatly appreciate the effort and time thant Senator Schumer has put into helping our citizens, our families, our state through this tragedy." Oh well...

ProMinx

you wanna know how she pulled it off? she campaigned her ass off and got women out to vote for her. she visited my little shiitass town TWICE. now that she is elected she hasn't stepped foot near here, and doesn't do a thing for us. :rolleyes:

[NuTs62]

I'm not gonna bother reading the article. Seems like you're already helping Bush campaign when you don't present the other side to it.

As for not setting foot in some place since the person last campaigned? Bush just recently set his foot back in California after telling us it was our own problem that there were electricity shortages, etc. And to have the nerve to come back here and try to gain our support for another reelection campaign? :rollseyes:

and yes, i'm biased too.

[Speedfreak]

Hillary needs to stop while she's giving head..I mean ahead. oops.:P

[Peachhead]

I'm a Southerner.

Hated Clinton the first time. And the second time.

Damn sure won't vote for her a third time.

What a suckass. :angry:

[oblongmelon]

Originally posted by ProMinx
Yeah...I can't really believe that anyone elected her in New York. What were those guys thinking? It isn't like she has ever really lived there, so she can't acurately represent their interests. Beyond that (in the words of my diehard liberal girlfriend)..."Hillary is a jackass...but then so are most politicians" and I have to agree on both counts. The best thing Clinton could have done was to say something simple like "We, the people of New York, greatly appreciate the effort and time thant Senator Schumer has put into helping our citizens, our families, our state through this tragedy." Oh well...

ProMinx

well THIS New Yorker Did Not, I repeat, DID NOT vote for her-she showed up in my town as well for a Democratic luncheon put on by some of the schmoes that live here-and brought her deadbeat husband along-we actually went to see the motorcade-for the simple reason he was still a sitting prez when they blew threw-it was wierd because he was looking out the window of the limo waving, and it looked like it was only a cardboard cut out of him with a movable arm. I must say-they were greeted by A TON of protesters.

[bachviet]

No more Clinton please (either Hillary or Chelsea).

[Booyamos]

bah, I don't like either, but I would say hillary is the lesser of the two evils.

Hopefully the democratic party can come up with a strong canidate to oppose bush. As high as his approval rating is right now, the economy still sucks and that can kill you in elections, even after a war. Just ask his dad.

[coleslaw]

It's time to open your eyes and look into a third party.

One thing that I hated last election was when people asked me why I was voting for a third party candidate because my vote didn't matter. They said that if they were going to vote, they wanted to at least make their vote count. :rolleyes:

[ProMinx]

Originally posted by NuTs62
I'm not gonna bother reading the article. Seems like you're already helping Bush campaign when you don't present the other side to it.

As for not setting foot in some place since the person last campaigned? Bush just recently set his foot back in California after telling us it was our own problem that there were electricity shortages, etc. And to have the nerve to come back here and try to gain our support for another reelection campaign? :rollseyes:

and yes, i'm biased too.

So rather than learn what a manipulative bitch this lady is, you choose to blindly support her? Bush was right though. I'm a Californian, and I've been paying out the butt for my electricity (I live alone and run ton of electronics all the time)...but that problem was ours and ours alone to handle. If he had stepped in, it would've only encouraged more Davisesque laziness in the Governor's seat. If only we had had a Governor who actually paid to have power plants and universities built...instead of prisons. I can't believe you would even consider something so blind as to hold Bush's lack of support against him. So if Nevada decided they no longer needed the Hoover Dam, so they shut it down and sold the turbines...then went through an energy crisis...would you believe that the government should bail the state out despite its gross negligence? Don't even lie...because you wouldn't.

Grow up and actually reaad articles that might benefit you.

ProMinx

[sbp]

Its no secret the Clintons are opportunists of the low sort.

Michael Reagan makes good points. Although this is early in the season the Democratic presidential candidates are seen as unimpressive (http:/www.washtimes.com/national/20030505-78938273.htm).
"Democratic presidential candidates, who nearly spent more time criticizing each other than President Bush in Saturday night's debate, got poor-to-lackluster reviews from political analysts yesterday."

So she might be drafted into running. "I have heard the cries of people wanting another choice, therefore I accept the arduous task of running for President."

btw anyone notice how much Kerry and Dean hate each other?

Yes, the Clintons still control much of the Democrat party machine.

Some liberals are hopeful that Bush 43 will be like Bush 41 {a war in Iraq, tepid economy} but its not going to be. GWB has learned the lessons of dad and the party is going to be united unlike '92. Any democratic candidate is going to face an uphill battle. The democrats are rightfully viewed as weak on security and other issues. They are drifting around trying to find something and have nothing to offer. It won't be a calkwalk for GWB though.

If Hillary is going to run as president for the Democratic party she is going to have to do it asap. Candidates are picking up the endorsements and moola.

[sbp]

Now while time will tell whether or not she runs in 2004, imo Hillary is not going to run for President in 2004. 2008 on the other hand could be a different matter. By waiting she gains several advantages. Experience Even though Hillary was co-president :rolleyes: with Bill, right now Hillary is only a first term Senator in her third year. By waiting till to run as the 2008 Democratic candidate, she'll be a second term Senator and can boast about her many accomplishments as they all do. Compared to longtimers Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, she may come off as inexperienced. Of course that hasn't stopped Sharpton {my favorite ;)} and South Carolina Senator John Edwards {himself a first termer} from running. :heh:

The sacrificial lamb strategy {being Dole in '96}/get rid of the old wood

Allow one these guys to run and lose against a popular president. That way when 2008 comes around it can be said "hey you had your chance and blew it, now get out of the way for fresh blood." Also others would have had their chance{s} at the golden ring and blew it. Bob Graham is 66 years old and has health problems. Richard Gephardt tried in 1988 to become the Democratic candidate and this time. Lieberman ran with Gore on the 2000 presidential ticket and now this try. "Hell you guys haven't won before, why should we choose you as nominee?"

Strengthen and broaden the base Think its any mistake Hillary chose to be Senator from New York-one of the most populated states with mucho electoral votes (http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm)?

A lot of people despise her, but she does have a good amount of support in the Democratic party. Leftwingers and Clinton lovers out there would vote for her anyways, but she'll have to appeal to the mushy middle in the general election though. She can soften up her image and reduce her negatives, although to a certain extent its a lost cause ala Gingrich since alot of people will never like her. :heh:

Hillary can continue to collect favors and money while building a base for a potential run. Furthermore, other potential 2008 democratic candidates can be nudged into not running. Too late for that now {to a certain extent}.

Time Time fades some memories. It would be 8 years since the end of the Clinton administration compared to 4. A lot of the people were tired of that administration and its misdoings.

Also get the sense its not just her time yet.

Nostalgia If the Democratic candidate loses in 2004 as I think is likely, nostalgia may set in. "When was the last time Democrat became President? Well it was when a Clinton was elected and not once but twice! If you want to win again, run a Clinton."Also don't forget the Republicans are going to have to find someone to run in 2008. VP Cheney sure as hell won't be doing it. 2008 would seem like an opportune time to make her move.

//www.lemonizer.com/uploads/Hillary.jpg

[ProMinx]

sbp makes a number of very strong points, and to be honest, I don't believe that Clinton will run this next election...although she has made a number of moves that would be suspicious if she didn't run (such as attacking the current potential democratic nominees and acridly screeching about Bush and his supporters). I was just curious how people would vote, were they forced to make this choice. I think that of the 15 who voted for Bush here, probably 9 were voting for Bush, and were voting against Hillary. Personally I detest this woman. If she is ever President, I will move out of the country (farther than Canada... running to Canada would be a far too Clintonesque response to hostile conditions...) until she is removed from office...and hopefully executed. I really think that her immediate family should be rounded up and executed for the shame that they introduced to the White House.

ProMinx

PS - For the die-hard Clinton-defenders, I'd like to point out that the shame was not just his JFK-like romps (despite a decided difference in quality) through marital infidelity...but also his outright lies in court while under oath. We all know that he, as a Yale Law School graduate, understood the definition of sexual relations and the severity of lying under oath. In addition, his shared tax-evasion with Hillary and other friends was also quite shameful. He deserved his impeachment.

[sbp]

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/hillary2.gif

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/dems.gif

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by ProMinx


So rather than learn what a manipulative bitch this lady is, you choose to blindly support her? Bush was right though. I'm a Californian, and I've been paying out the butt for my electricity (I live alone and run ton of electronics all the time)...but that problem was ours and ours alone to handle. If he had stepped in, it would've only encouraged more Davisesque laziness in the Governor's seat. If only we had had a Governor who actually paid to have power plants and universities built...instead of prisons. I can't believe you would even consider something so blind as to hold Bush's lack of support against him. So if Nevada decided they no longer needed the Hoover Dam, so they shut it down and sold the turbines...then went through an energy crisis...would you believe that the government should bail the state out despite its gross negligence? Don't even lie...because you wouldn't.

Grow up and actually reaad articles that might benefit you.

ProMinx

Benefit me? or benefit your cause? Why even create a poll? If you're gonna ask people to vote in a poll, present both sides.

I never said Hilary was a good candidate, nor did I say I support her. I don't support Bush, nor have I thrown my support for any candidate either, so please keep your assumptions to yourself.

So in what cases should the government bail out industries? Bush wants to stimulate our economy by giving tax cuts and suchforth that won't help the average person. He's attempting to find a cure, when he could have prevented much of the hit. The electricity crisis killed much of the California economy, and many people paid with their jobs for it. Instead of giving some federal aid and helping out with a solution, they are aiding by giving unemployment checks. Thats alot better, don't you think?

[ProMinx]

You're discussing the situation in California...but then you use the term: "bailing out industries". I'd like to express that the state is not an industry. The state is a fairly autonomous unit of government that has its own responsibilities. The national government has no right to regulate state electricity prices, and they shouldn't be bailing us out when the governor (who you probably elected) digs us a hole so deep that we cannot see the sky.

On top of that...yes I presented one side of the argument...but it was a compelling side. When I produce an argument or poll, I do not have to present both sides. I assume that people here are educated and understand most of the situation without my holding their hands and babying them. I assume that most people here read a lot of articles online and know a fair amount about the big issues...so I am not going to spell them all out. What do you want? A life story for each candidate? I just chose to inform them of a fairly recent piece of news that could affect their opinions of this "woman" (As Lois from "Family Guy" says, "I realized that I could be just like Hillary Clinton...only without the penis"). I am sorry if perhaps I gave everyone the benefit of the doubt and expected too much, but it seems that only you fell below the expected standards. The only thing I have left to say is... Blow.

ProMinx

[ProMinx]

But if you really need me to present both sides...here you go.

George W. Bush - He is our current president, and is doing a good job despite the short hand that the previous president left him with respect to the economy and international opinion. He fought and won a necessary war with record speed, accuracy, and minimum casualties. He may have ears somewhat like a monkey, but at least, unlike his predecessor, he doesn't **** around like one. One of his major goals in office has been to restore a portion of the former dignity to the White House and to regain the respect that our nation once held, and I would say he has done a good job on both parts. He has had no scandals, has decimated two serious threats to the American people, and he has refrained from mindless attacks on his opponents.

Hillary R. Clinton - He is a graduate of Yale Law who successfully rode his husband's coattails throughout life. As his husband's time in the spotlight (which was used more or less to make the Presidency look like a 3-Ring circus) faded, Mr. Hillary Clinton chose to run for senator in a state that he could never adequately represent, considering he had never lived in the area and rarely visited it. This odd choice to run for New York senator seems to fit the rest of his life of random manipulation. He was under investigation for tax evasion, until Mr. George Bush's administration gave him and his husband a pardon so as to delete any further damage to the American reputation. He has created a reputation as something of a political jackal, viciously attacking and slandering any friend or foe whose destruction might benefit the Clinton household. On top of that, Mr. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the ugliest Martha Stewart impersonators ever set on this earth.

How is that? I've accurately presented each side of the story, so now will you shut up?

ProMinx

PS - If you want me to hold your hand and teach you everything in one thread, you've got another thing coming. You go out and earn your education the same way that the rest of us did.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by ProMinx


So rather than learn what a manipulative bitch this lady is, you choose to blindly support her? Bush was right though. I'm a Californian, and I've been paying out the butt for my electricity (I live alone and run ton of electronics all the time)...but that problem was ours and ours alone to handle. If he had stepped in, it would've only encouraged more Davisesque laziness in the Governor's seat. If only we had had a Governor who actually paid to have power plants and universities built...instead of prisons. I can't believe you would even consider something so blind as to hold Bush's lack of support against him. So if Nevada decided they no longer needed the Hoover Dam, so they shut it down and sold the turbines...then went through an energy crisis...would you believe that the government should bail the state out despite its gross negligence? Don't even lie...because you wouldn't.

Grow up and actually reaad articles that might benefit you.

ProMinx

Keep in mind that much of the electricity shortage was fabricated by those swell dudes over at Enron as well as the many other energy traders. Yes, California did indeed leave itself in a position where it would be at the mercy of much of the energy industry, however, they were gouged unfairly.

[Butch]

Originally posted by ProMinx
But if you really need me to present both sides...here you go.

George W. Bush - He is our current president, and is doing a good job despite the short hand that the previous president left him with respect to the economy and international opinion. He fought and won a necessary war with record speed, accuracy, and minimum casualties. . .


I'm staying of this for the most part . . . but I'm going to call bullsh*t on this one . . . the war in Iraq was absolutely NOT a "necessary war" . . . it was very voluntary and it was the result of a failure of epic proportions . . . Bush and his team failed diplomatically. They failed in avoiding a war, they failed in getting a coalition together, they failed in securing Turkey's land for use in a war . . . and most recently, they failed with North Korea.

Any President can declare war. That is easy.

Also, "He fought and won a necessary war with record speed, accuracy, and minimum casualties." . . . I don't remember him fighting.

[Butch]

Originally posted by Yossarian
butch, i think prominx is saying that it was a necessary war to oust so-damn insane

I know exactly what he's saying. It was not a necessary war in the least. It was not a national security issue to oust Saddam Hussein. He was not a threat.

Even before the war, we knew he did not have the capability to hurt the US in any meaningful way . . . and if anyone brings up 9/11 or the Persian Gulf War . . . you will be very quickly ignored.

The war was completely voluntary . . . and that's not necessarily a bad thing . . . I'm quite Macchiavellian and believe that the ends justify the means . . . so if we create a viable democracy in Iraq and set a standard for other Arab nations to follow . . . great.

What gets me going is people saying that this war was necessary and that Bush was a great leader for doing it. This was a HUGE gamble . . . still is . . . it is WAAAYYY too early to consider the war a success. A success can be declared when Iraq has a fair election and becomes a contributing member to the international economy. Until then . . . it's a wait and see issue . . . and it is a SERIOUS gamble.

Let's call a spade a spade.

Necessary wars aren't gambles.

[Cantacuzene]

I'm voting for Gephardt in the primaries. He is the only democratic candidate that I trust at this point, and I'd take him as Pres in a second.

SBP, Michael Reagan is a tool. He has nothing positive to say, his entire career has been clinton bashing. His greatest hope is that Hillary wins the election so he will have someone to bash so he cant get more face time on Fox News.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Butch

Until then . . . it's a wait and see issue . . . and it is a SERIOUS gamble.

Great couple of posts. I couldn't agree more that it is too early to pass judgement on Iraq. Hell, it is still to early to pass judgement on the Afgan operation as well. Nevertheless, I do disagree that it was the result of numerous failures. Yes, war happens when diplomacy fails but be careful who you pin the balme upon for its failure. In many areas the people who attempted to thwart action are seen as "failures" and, of course, Hussain could hardly be seen as a success for anything. Personally, I don't think we'll ever know if the war was "necessary" but I do think it was the right thing to do. So I don't know if I would call all those things failures.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by NuTs62
I'm not gonna bother reading the article. Seems like you're already helping Bush campaign when you don't present the other side to it.

As for not setting foot in some place since the person last campaigned? Bush just recently set his foot back in California after telling us it was our own problem that there were electricity shortages, etc. And to have the nerve to come back here and try to gain our support for another reelection campaign? :rollseyes:

and yes, i'm biased too.

That's intelligent, stick your head in the sand, that always is an intelligent thing to do. :rolleyes:

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Butch
I'm staying of this for the most part . . . but I'm going to call bullsh*t on this one . . . the war in Iraq was absolutely NOT a "necessary war" . . . it was very voluntary and it was the result of a failure of epic proportions . . . Bush and his team failed diplomatically. They failed in avoiding a war...

How much responsibility for this situation do you place on Saddam?




Dave.

[Butch]

Originally posted by Dave_7


How much responsibility for this situation do you place on Saddam?




Dave.

Enough that he put himself in a position where war could even be considered a remotely palatable choice by the American public.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Merlin

Personally, I don't think we'll ever know if the war was "necessary" but I do think it was the right thing to do. So I don't know if I would call all those things failures.

If we ever find the WMD, then perhaps the war was "necessary". Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were Bush's intentions when going into Iraq, to find the WMD. But now he's touting success when coalition forces have yet to find it. Sure we tumbled most of Saddam's regime, that can be considered a success. When is he going to deliver on his promise that there is proof for such an invasion?

[cheapie]

sigh....hillary is a beast. i can't even remotely imagine voting for her. she's a lying, conniving, publicity hound, gold-digging, coattail-riding, ummm, polititian. i can't think of one redeeming thing about her. i think bush is a good person and has chosen a great team to make up for his shortcomings. in the end, he did the correct thing in regards to the energy crisis. however, he does leave me wanting a little more as a leader of the free world. while i am a strong bush supporter, i would GLADLY vote for someone else if given a better choice (dem OR rep) (and i DON'T consider gephardt a better choice)

do you think hillary will win her next NY election? if so, she might consider waiting for the next pres. election. if not, she has to jump in right now.

i'm desperately hoping for better candidates next election. i would even vote for a democrat :eek: like evan bayh (my old IN governor).

lastly, props to canta for not blowing up this thread. ;) he could have very easily taken prominx's bait!

[cheapie]

nm. oops...

[brainsmile]

isn't the general concensus about Gephart that he's a bit too left of center? Don't get me wrong I've always liked him but I don't know if he could win.

[eSDee]

I'm inclined to agree with Butch on this one. Saying George W. is responsible for a successful war is like saying the pizza delivery guy is responsible for great pizza. Our military can kick anyones ass no matter who is in charge. It's just George that decided it was time to do it, despite opposition from around the world.

It definitely was not a "necessary" war, and yes, it is too soon to make decisions on it's success or lack there of.

[winston wolf]Let's not start sucking eachothers ***** just yet[/winston wolf]

[ProMinx]

Originally posted by NuTs62


If we ever find the WMD, then perhaps the war was "necessary". Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were Bush's intentions when going into Iraq, to find the WMD. But now he's touting success when coalition forces have yet to find it. Sure we tumbled most of Saddam's regime, that can be considered a success. When is he going to deliver on his promise that there is proof for such an invasion?

You're right. You're right. We'll probably never find these chemical weapons (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?vts=040420031050&cp1=1), these mobile chem/bio weapons labs that we claimed to exist even though no one believed us (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83840,00.html), or any evidence of nuclear facilities hidden from inspectors underneath Al-Tuwaitha (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31966). At very least, we'll never truly find out whether or not we can trust France (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/28/wfra28.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/28/ixportaltop.html), Russia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$EZ1TQPK4OYVZ3QFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/13/wrus13.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/13/ixnewstop.html), and Germany (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F20%2Fwirq20.xml).

I guess the only positive results that we got from this war were some really funny pictures...
http://www.madblast.com/media/picture/confused_protesters.jpg
the best stand-up comedian of all time
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

and we got to hurt the French economy a little bit... (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/4/16/100520)

But besides all of this, the war was clearly useless and utterly unnecessary. Of course...knowing Nuts' opinion about burying his/her head in the sand when possible reading something he/she doesn't like...he/she will never follow these links, and he/she will remain ignorant of the true accomplishments of this campaign.

ProMinx

[Nija]

Originally posted by ProMinx


these chemical weapons (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?vts=040420031050&cp1=1),

You mean the ones they have not found? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85506,00.html)


these mobile chem/bio weapons labs that we claimed to exist even though no one believed us (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83840,00.html), or

The ones that were tested and said not to be weapon labs? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/index.html)

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Nija

You mean the ones they have not found? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85506,00.html)


and these too


"If no WMD are found, then the fundamental justification for this war is not there, and there's going to have to be some real answers why we went to war and how did the U.S. make such a huge mistake about the WMD programs in Iraq," he said.
link 1 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/02/sprj.irq.wmd.hunt/index.html)

and another Link 2 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/04/sprj.irq.main/index.html)

[NuTs62]

"Bush on WMD: 'We Will Find Them'"

link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/iraq/main551327.shtml)

"Will" meaning they have not found it, yet. I'm not denying the possibility of it existing, but you say they've already found it, which they haven't.


It's nice to know that "educated" people like yourself can resort to name-calling and insults in a discussion. :rolleyes:

[InfiniteNothing]

<comic guy> Worst political thread ever </>

This thread is gay. It is such a waste of time to argue this now because A) We don't know that Hillary is running B) ALOT changes in a year and it's stupid to be polling now. Even if Hillary does run we are just going to argue this one all over.

Waiting will give us better evidence on the war (a good question to ask is are we safer now than we were a couple years ago) and on how effective our current president is or isn't (are we better off than we were 4 years ago?). It'll also give us a chance to better meet the democratic presidential candidate so we can better compliment or insult him (/her?). Think about what we used to think just 3 months ago; some of us used to believe that this aerial satellite photo of a small white blob absolutely proved that sadam had WMD.

I'm amazed at how eager we are to get into an argument. I don't blame you though; with a crappy thread starter like that you kinda feel obligated to come in and spout your sentiments.

Why don't we give this crippled thread a fresh start a year from now with a post that inspires healthy mind gum for us to chew on from one of the boards more... open minded members.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
<comic guy> Worst political thread ever </>


Well said.

Incedently, I don't think Hillary will run in '04. She is too (cold and) calculating to risk being run out of town by a landslide Bush re-election victory. Besides... if she thought she could take the '04 election, I think she'd already be out in full-force.

Gephardt, I will say, does seem more genuine than someone like Daschle. I get the feeling from Gephardt that it's more about what (he thinks) is right, than it is about the power.

Daschle and CERTAINLY Hillary give me the feeling that it's more about the power.

I don't get that feeling from GW. I think holding that office is more about right vs. wrong for him, rather than having the power that the office holds.


Did that make ANY sense? I just re-read it... ahh... so what... I'm clicking Submit Reply.



Dave.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
...healthy mind gum for us to chew on ...

I think we've got today's phrase that pays! :hihi:

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
<comic guy> Worst political thread ever </>

This thread is gay. It is such a waste of time to argue this now because A) We don't know that Hillary is running B) ALOT changes in a year and it's stupid to be polling now. Even if Hillary does run we are just going to argue this one all over.

Waiting will give us better evidence on the war (a good question to ask is are we safer now than we were a couple years ago) and on how effective our current president is or isn't (are we better off than we were 4 years ago?). It'll also give us a chance to better meet the democratic presidential candidate so we can better compliment or insult him (/her?). Think about what we used to think just 3 months ago; some of us used to believe that this aerial satellite photo of a small white blob absolutely proved that sadam had WMD.

I'm amazed at how eager we are to get into an argument. I don't blame you though; with a crappy thread starter like that you kinda feel obligated to come in and spout your sentiments.

Why don't we give this crippled thread a fresh start a year from now with a post that inspires healthy mind gum for us to chew on from one of the boards more... open minded members.

:stupid: sounds good to me :)

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Dave_7



Well said.

Incedently, I don't think Hillary will run in '04. She is too (cold and) calculating to risk being run out of town by a landslide Bush re-election victory. Besides... if she thought she could take the '04 election, I think she'd already be out in full-force.

Gephardt, I will say, does seem more genuine than someone like Daschle. I get the feeling from Gephardt that it's more about what (he thinks) is right, than it is about the power.

Daschle and CERTAINLY Hillary give me the feeling that it's more about the power.

I don't get that feeling from GW. I think holding that office is more about right vs. wrong for him, rather than having the power that the office holds.


Did that make ANY sense? I just re-read it... ahh... so what... I'm clicking Submit Reply.



Dave.

well said even though i'm not in complete agreement. i was thinking of daschle when i said i wouldn't support him earlier. i'm not as adamant about gephardt.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco
I'm inclined to agree with Butch on this one. Saying George W. is responsible for a successful war is like saying the pizza delivery guy is responsible for great pizza. Our military can kick anyones ass no matter who is in charge. It's just George that decided it was time to do it, despite opposition from around the world.

It definitely was not a "necessary" war, and yes, it is too soon to make decisions on it's success or lack there of.

[winston wolf]Let's not start sucking eachothers ***** just yet[/winston wolf]

I disagree. Look at some of the military conflicts/blunders in the past. Vietnam is a perfect example. LBJ tied the military's hands, and in the end we lost. You can't actually tell me that we couldn't have beaten the VC, can you? Or how about as recent as somalia? In somalia, Clinton did not want to make a big deal out of what went on down there so he would not allow *real* attack choppers (aka apache, cobra, commanche, etc... NOT black hawks and hueys) or *real* armor (bradleys, abhrams, etc.. not hummers) to be used in the operations in Somalia. Look what happened there. Again, you can't actually tell me that some Somalians can kick our military's ass? The reason our military was unsuccessful in both of these situations is due to the president in power at the time of situation not having the balls to let our men and women in the military handle the situation the way it should.

Although this thread seems to be getting off track and it is all a guess as to if the wicked witch of NY will actually run, for the most part this thread is pretty interesting. :)

[Cantacuzene]

About Gephardt, when he speaks he speaks with a conviction and emotion that I havent seen a politician have since Clinton first ran in '92 and Reagan had in '80.

I honestly believe that he believes what he is saying. He isnt just sayign what his advisors told him to say, like GW or Gore. Gephardt may be a tad left of center (but still more to the middle than Hillary) but actually cares about what he says. Agree or disagree with his positions, whatever, but at last acknowledge that he actually has form positions, unlike last election when the candidates swung wildly to the left or right depending on their audience.

Gephardt in '04!

[ShawnLee]

Anyone who thinks that leadership doesn't affect the way the military fights is on crack. As for the whether it was needed or not, who are we to say? We're past the decision so it's pointless to argue about it. I personally think it was needed, but whether it was or not, we'll let history decide.

As for choosing the Democratic candidate for 2004, I hope that Dean gets the nod. Of course, I'm a Republican and I want him to run so that we can destroy the Democratic party again. Man, and I thought that the liberals had learned their lessons from when the Nader helped us win. Losers.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by ShawnLee105
Anyone who thinks that leadership doesn't affect the way the military fights is on crack.

So since I am the only one to say that, I am on crack? Sorry man I'm not on the pipe. And I believe you and the french guy are mistaken. Our modern military can destroy anyone, even with a feeble mind like Dubya in the Whitehouse.

[InfiniteNothing]

Oh esdee, always a sucker for trolling. You and I both know you are right. Just ignore the fool.

[ShawnLee]

Fool eh? I never said that the military couldn't obliterate anything on Earth. That was never argued, you stated that the national leadership didn't affect the way that the military fought, and the truth of the matter is that leadership from the President does affect a Private at the bottom. Calling the President a feeble mind may make you feel better, but it does nothing for your argument.
As for InfiniteNothing, well, I think that his post certainly reflects how truly infinite his nothingness is. Don't want to start a flamewar, just responding to some criticism.

Getting back to the point of this thread, I don't think Hillary will actually run in '04, it'd be a mistake for her. If she does run for President, which seems likely, I'm guessing it'll be in 2008, when she won't have to run against an incumbent President, assuming Bush wins.

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


So since I am the only one to say that, I am on crack? Sorry man I'm not on the pipe. And I believe you and the french guy are mistaken. Our modern military can destroy anyone, even with a feeble mind like Dubya in the Whitehouse.

And I suppose that a good football team could be led with any old coach.

Just because we have the latest technology to obliterate whatever we target doesn't mean there aren't other factors in warfare.
If we didn't have that technology, I would be afraid... very afraid.

And if that jackass Gore was in the White House or [gasp] Hillary,by now they would be wondering why the other diplomatic roads to peace weren't working.

I wonder what language we would be speaking or how many Americans would be alive a year and a half after 911 if those two idiots were making vital decisions?

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by johnnymk


And I suppose that a good football team could be led with any old coach.

Just because we have the latest technology to obliterate whatever we target doesn't mean there aren't other factors in warfare.
If we didn't have that technology, I would be afraid... very afraid.

And if that jackass Gore was in the White House or [gasp] Hillary,by now they would be wondering why the other diplomatic roads to peace weren't working.

I wonder what language we would be speaking or how many Americans would be alive a year and a half after 911 if those two idiots were making vital decisions?

First, your football analogy sucks because the football coach makes actual decisions. Bush made no decisions. The war was fought by the Pentagon. Your football analogy would have been better if you equated Bush to the owner of the team. He is technically 'in charge' but he doesnt call the shots on the field.

You also assume 9/11 would have happened if Gore was elected. You cant be certain that it would have. Even if it did, who are you to say what kind of job he would have done handling it? I didn't realize you had a fortune telling job on the side.

Also, have you read the news? US troops are pulling out of Saudi Arabia! That means Bin Ladin got exactly what he wanted. His goal for 9/11 was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia. Lets see, he achieved his goal there, he is still alive, and he inadvertantly toppled a secular government in Iraq that has a good chance of being replaced by a fundamentalist one that would be more to his liking. Sounds like the only 'winner' in this entire 2 year senario was Bin Ladin.

[johnnymk]

And I didn't realize that you had such fortune telling skills, either.
911 was just waiting to happen. Witness the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the crashing into the ship overseas (I forget the name of the ship), and many many other incidents.
The President is the Commander in Chief regardless of what you think. Just because George let the Pentagon have a little more authority than usual doesn't mean he doesn't make vital decisions in war campaigns.
And regardless of what you think, Gore is a wimp and will always be one.
And as usual, you always inject your knee jerk emotional nonsense attacks in your stupid rebuttals.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Also, have you read the news? US troops are pulling out of Saudi Arabia! That means Bin Ladin got exactly what he wanted. His goal for 9/11 was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia. Lets see, he achieved his goal there, he is still alive, and he inadvertantly toppled a secular government in Iraq that has a good chance of being replaced by a fundamentalist one that would be more to his liking. Sounds like the only 'winner' in this entire 2 year senario was Bin Ladin.

A government friendly to him in Afgan. has been toppled. His entire financial network has been pretty much frozen. His funding cut off. The vast majority of his compatriots are either dead or in Guantanimo. A government (Iraq) that was hostile was to the US was toppled. Iraqis were dancing in the streets and destroying statues when US troops moved in. That looked great on worldwide camers. There is a greater US military presence in the reigon then ever before. Every government in the region knows that the US wil attack if provoked, something that has not necessarily been the case in the past. They also know there would be the most serious consequences for providing safe harbor to Bin Laden, terrorists, or anyone else hostile to our interests. And he is still on the run hiding out in caves. I don't think Bin Laden really likes too much of what has happened in the last two years.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Merlin


A government friendly to him in Afgan. has been toppled. His entire financial network has been pretty much frozen. His funding cut off. The vast majority of his compatriots are either dead or in Guantanimo. A government (Iraq) that was hostile was to the US was toppled. Iraqis were dancing in the streets and destroying statues when US troops moved in. That looked great on worldwide camers. There is a greater US military presence in the reigon then ever before. Every government in the region knows that the US wil attack if provoked, something that has not necessarily been the case in the past. They also know there would be the most serious consequences for providing safe harbor to Bin Laden, terrorists, or anyone else hostile to our interests. And he is still on the run hiding out in caves. I don't think Bin Laden really likes too much of what has happened in the last two years.


http://www.tattlefish.com/imgs/emoticons/new/icon_clap.gif

[sbp]

Funny how peeps are more than willing to blame Bush for everything under the sun, but won't give him any credit on what he has accomplished against terrorism and other issues.

It is accurate to say if Gore had been elected we don't know exactly what would have happened. It very well could have been if the democrats were in charge we would have another 9/11 by now. http://www.pcabusers.net/forums/images/icons/headshaker.gif

One of the excuses bin Laden and apologists made is that the US was in Saudi Arabia. Now that the mission has been accomplished the US should stay in Saudi Arabia just to show bin Laden? Come now.

Don't worry the radical Islamists have come up with a new excuse to continue the wicked campaign. Its the whole Arabian Peninsula (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030505-37743770.htm) that must be withdrawn from. Even the US ever withdrew from the whole region, the terrorist b1tches would come up with more bs to murder.

[cheapie]

i think we need to be careful here. i am NOT a gore fan. i think he's weak, a liar, etc. however, it's definately a stretch to say that we would have another 9/11 if he was in power.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by sbp
Funny how peeps are more than willing to blame Bush for everything under the sun, but won't give him any credit on what he has accomplished against terrorism and other issues.Funny, that's exactly what conservative peeps do with Clinton and the economic prosperity we had under his watch!

[Merlin]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Funny, that's exactly what conservative peeps do with Clinton and the economic prosperity we had under his watch!

You are right there. Nevertheless, I think it is valid to give a president credit/blame for foreign policy, effective use of military forces, domestic law making, and his federal appointees. The economy is largely out of his hands. So he should get credit for keeping Greenspan (although some would argue that) and balancing the budget (again some would argue that he did it by depriving the military and was lucky to collect a windfall from dom com taxes) but you can't credit him for the rest even though his vice-president invented the internet :hihi: (sorry, I know it is a cheap shot but I couldn't help it)

[Cantacuzene]

Delude yourselves as much as you want, but Bin Ladin's stated goal, before and after 9/11 was the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. Bottom line is his actions had the effect he wanted them to. So what Afghanistan is gone for him? He obviously found somewhere else friendly to him to live. So what his financial network is gone? He lived in a cave for years, financial greed is not his concern. So what if most of his cronies are caught. He as well as we know that he himself is teh prize. Why should people he most likely considered his pawns matter to him? Self sacrifice is a virtue he seems to prize in others.

Johnny, as far as injecting my "knee jerk emotional" arguements, why dont you look at what I actually said and what you actually said? All I did was either state a fact or pose a question. I never said anything opinionated and tried to gussy it up like a fact like your entire series of posts. Let me point out everything you said that was a pure opinion right after you critqued me for using opinion in my posts...


And I didn't realize that you had such fortune telling skills, either.

Never once did I set up an opinion as truth, or establish some sort of counter-factual senario like you did. All I remarked was that we don't know how Gore would have handled it so its pointless to debate that.


911 was just waiting to happen.

I agree. BUT, I cant claim to know that as a fact. I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility that it may not have been. I haent spoken to anyone involved so I can't claim to posess 100% truth. Strange that you can.


Just because George let the Pentagon have a little more authority than usual doesn't mean he doesn't make vital decisions in war campaigns.

Is that the truth or is that what you want to belive? The actual truth is none of us were present at the Pentagon/Presidential meetings, so how can any of us make any comment on the matter? the only evidence we have to go on is the media, which including Fox News, expounded at length of teh hands off approach the President took to the strategy of the war, and how he allowed the Pentagon greater conrol then any previous President. We dont have ANY evidence to teh contrary, so where you are basing your 'emotional' claims is unknown to me.


And regardless of what you think, Gore is a wimp and will always be one

And regardless of what you think: thats your opinion, not any certain fact. You claim to have such a greater understanding of his character than I do, yet me and you have met and spoken to him exactly the same amount of times. Since I havent made a comment about his courage one way or teh other, it seems that you, not I, are the gasbag with the opinionated, "emotional nonsense attacks" and "stupid rebuttals."

Enjoy that.

[johnnymk]

You are a legend in your own mind. As usual, you are the king of twisting things around to suit your small mind.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by johnnymk
You are a legend in your own mind. As usual, you are the king of twisting things around to suit your small mind. I'm afraid he's eating your lunch on this one, johnny. He's correct on every count.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Delude yourselves as much as you want, but Bin Ladin's stated goal, before and after 9/11 was the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. Bottom line is his actions had the effect he wanted them to. So what Afghanistan is gone for him? He obviously found somewhere else friendly to him to live. So what his financial network is gone? He lived in a cave for years, financial greed is not his concern. So what if most of his cronies are caught. He as well as we know that he himself is teh prize. Why should people he most likely considered his pawns matter to him? Self sacrifice is a virtue he seems to prize in others.


Becareful with that delusional tag as it can cut both ways. Trops did not leave in any meaningful way whatsoever. Troops may be leaving Saudi but they are not leaving the area. They are simply moving across a border. I doubt you could find any resident of the region to agree that the US has a lesser rather than greater presence there now. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I think he wanted US troops out of the region. We can argue that all day long but really, what makes the most locical sence? Afgan being gone is a big deal for him. It was a friendlt govt. that he was able to use as a base of operations. Losing that will make it infinitely more difficult to do anything else. He may not have found somewhere to live. Being on the run and not getting caught is very diferent from finding a safe place to live. And the financial network...Yes, he is a man of very simple wants however, his ability to do anything else on any sort of scale has been removed. Guns, bombs, plave tickets, food - it all costs money. And a lot of it. The same goes for his people. I seriously doubt he gives a rat's ass about them. But without them he can't pull off any operations.

I seriously can't see how the current world would be in any way preferable to him when compared to two and a half years ago.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by zenbooty
I'm afraid he's eating your lunch on this one, johnny. He's correct on every count.

I disagree I think he did twist everything around. Especially on the fact that a president does affect the way his/her forces fight. I agree that Bush isn't the "coach" but he sure isn't the "owner" maybe more like the athletic director or something like that. Again take a look at my post above about Somalia and Vietnam. Our "modern" military, as Cant put it, couldn't kick the somalians' a$$es? Or the VCs' a$$es? I definately think we could have kicked both of their a$$es but the presidents in charge at those times tied the military's hands.

Also, I think our pullout of SA is not a complete one I think we are going to continue to use the bases their for training. Can anyone confirm this or does anyone have info to the contrary?

[eSDee]

Originally posted by guiseppewv


I disagree I think he did twist everything around. Especially on the fact that a president does affect the way his/her forces fight. I agree that Bush isn't the "coach" but he sure isn't the "owner" maybe more like the athletic director or something like that. Again take a look at my post above about Somalia and Vietnam. Our "modern" military, as Cant put it, couldn't kick the somalians' a$$es? Or the VCs' a$$es? I definately think we could have kicked both of their a$$es but the presidents in charge at those times tied the military's hands.

Just to clarify, when I say modern military I mean our military now, with Supertanks (http://www.msnbc.com/news/871839.asp?0cb=-21f133272) and Superweapons (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm). You might be able to compare it to the first gulf war but wouldn't you agree if we had the technology back in the 70's that we had now, Vietnam would be much different?


Originally posted by the troll Shawnlee
Fool eh? I never said that the military couldn't obliterate anything on Earth. That was never argued, you stated that the national leadership didn't affect the way that the military fought, and the truth of the matter is that leadership from the President does affect a Private at the bottom. Calling the President a feeble mind may make you feel better, but it does nothing for your argument.
As for InfiniteNothing, well, I think that his post certainly reflects how truly infinite his nothingness is. Don't want to start a flamewar, just responding to some criticism.

Don't want to start a flamewar? I never said anything about you, I just stated that I believe you were incorrect on your position after refuting the fact that I was "on crack". Then you come back and make another personal attack. I don't think that helps your argument either.

At any rate, your opinion means nothing to me so it's not a big deal :shrug:

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


Just to clarify, when I say modern military I mean our military now, with Supertanks (http://www.msnbc.com/news/871839.asp?0cb=-21f133272) and Superweapons (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm). You might be able to compare it to the first gulf war but wouldn't you agree if we had the technology back in the 70's that we had now, Vietnam would be much different?


First of all, Vietnam was never declared a war, I believe it was called a conflict. So we were wishy washy about our commitment to that area.
Secondly, Russia and Red China were helping our adversaries there. Russia's armed forces were a lot more potent back then . And they were blatant about their aid there.
The threat of a nuclear war was hanging over everyone's heads back then. So we didn't want to offend the Russians too much for fear of a nuclear attack on our country.
Even if we had the precision back then that our modern weapons have today, I am not sure what the targets would have been, and what the end result would be of systematically destroying vital areas of Vietnam.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


Just to clarify, when I say modern military I mean our military now, with Supertanks (http://www.msnbc.com/news/871839.asp?0cb=-21f133272) and Superweapons (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm). You might be able to compare it to the first gulf war but wouldn't you agree if we had the technology back in the 70's that we had now, Vietnam would be much different?


No, it wouldn't have made a difference. The reason we lost the conflict (since we never formally declared war) wsa due to the fact that most military target were off limits to our military and b/c we did not have the amount of military over there at one time that we needed to decisively crush the VC. It wouldn't matter how accurate our weapons were, our military was not allowed to attack certain critical military targets (i.e. C&C installations, SAM sites, AA sites, Ammo dumps, etc....) It is very hard to fight when you can't hit your enemy's critical assets.

Also, tanks weren't very effective in the dense jungles of Vietnam. Tanks are very good in very open spaces, the "tighter" the environment that they operate in the higher the tank casualties become.

[whitak24]

i love it when people lecture eSDee about the way the military works :heh:

like he doesn't know....

[Cantacuzene]

I don't understand whats wrong with being skeptical of things? It seems like a lot of people here get an idea into their head and anythign contrary is heresy. I'm only certain of facts, btu it seems like far too many people here are certain of their opinions.

[Butch]

On the topic of the withdrawal of US Troops from Saudi Arabia . . . this abstract from a NY Times Editorial a week ago sums things pretty well . . .

<<Sunset in Saudi Arabia

(NYT) 496 words
National Edition , Section A , Page 34 , Column 1
LEAD PARAGRAPH - At first glance, it may look as if the United States is capitulating to one of Osama bin Laden's central demands by pulling nearly all American military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Actually, the decision is an encouraging sign that the Bush administration has the confidence and maturity to act in the long-term interests of the United States and Saudi Arabia, even if it means taking some heat for overlapping with Mr. bin Laden's agenda.

Close American relations with Saudi Arabia go back more than half a century. But basing large numbers of United States combat troops there is a comparative novelty, directly related to the threat from Saddam Hussein. With the Iraqi dictator gone, the administration can afford to move most of the 10,000 American troops now in Saudi Arabia to other regional bases, where they will be more welcome, face fewer military restrictions and provide less propaganda fodder for Islamic extremists.>>

All combat troops are being removed, but a small, longstanding training program will remain.

Canta was right that this is what Bin Laden wanted, but should we stay there just to be stubborn? It makes sense to move out and it is a win-win for the US & Saudi Arabia.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I'm only certain of facts, btu it seems like far too many people here are certain of their opinions.


ummmm, no offense canta but this is pretty much you (and probably me also) in a nutshell (http://161.58.5.90/austin/nutshell.wav)

[eSDee]

Originally posted by whitak24
i love it when people lecture eSDee about the way the military works :heh:

like he doesn't know....

Well I respect their opinions, I just respectfully disagree. Being in the military doesn't give me all the answers, I just have a different viewpoint. I used to "research" the military all the time too by reading books by former military, and so I can't help but think the way I do. Reconnaisance is one of the greatest improvements since Vietnam, and that alone I think would have made a huge difference back then. But we'll never know the truth, so it's not worth arguing.

By the way, if anyone ever wants to read some hardcore shat by a former Navy Seal, I would recommend the Rogue Warrior series. Amazon has like 23 pages online (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671795937/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/102-5838514-7240138?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link).

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


Well I respect their opinions, I just respectfully disagree. Being in the military doesn't give me all the answers, I just have a different viewpoint. I used to "research" the military all the time too by reading books by former military, and so I can't help but think the way I do. Reconnaisance is one of the greatest improvements since Vietnam, and that alone I think would have made a huge difference back then. But we'll never know the truth, so it's not worth arguing.

By the way, if anyone ever wants to read some hardcore shat by a former Navy Seal, I would recommend the Rogue Warrior series. Amazon has like 23 pages online (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671795937/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/102-5838514-7240138?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link).

I do agree that recon is one of the biggest improvements, you can't hit what you don't know is there. I also agree that we can argue til were blue in the face and we still won't know the answer to "what if?". And I agree to disagree. :)

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by whitak24
i love it when people lecture eSDee about the way the military works :heh:

like he doesn't know....

I don't think I was lecturing him in how the military works, I was mearly giving a counterpoint to his point. :) And, besides, I have to agree with eSDee that just b/c he is in the military doesn't mean that he is the foremost authority on the military or military tactics. Although he doesn't have different insight from those who are not in the military.

How long have you been in eSDee?

[whitak24]

Originally posted by guiseppewv


I don't think I was lecturing him in how the military works, I was mearly giving a counterpoint to his point. :) And, besides, I have to agree with eSDee that just b/c he is in the military doesn't mean that he is the foremost authority on the military or military tactics. Although he doesn't have different insight from those who are not in the military.

How long have you been in eSDee?
sometimes, i use a term like "lecturing" in a somewhat non-literal way to ehance the perceived humor value (in my own mind at least) of my posts ;)

and like esdee said, i don't think he's the expert just because he happened to serve in the military. but there are a lot of instances where people treat him like he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when he discusses military issues. i respect what he says simply because he's been there, and i haven't. i don't necessarily think he provides the final answer, or the only answer, but an informed perspective. and i just want people to realize that :)

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by guiseppewv
And, besides, I have to agree with eSDee that just b/c he is in the military doesn't mean that he is the foremost authority on the military or military tactics.

Ofcourse, we determined in another thread that Prominx was teh world's foremost military theorist.

[bachviet]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


Just to clarify, when I say modern military I mean our military now, with Supertanks (http://www.msnbc.com/news/871839.asp?0cb=-21f133272) and Superweapons (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm). You might be able to compare it to the first gulf war but wouldn't you agree if we had the technology back in the 70's that we had now, Vietnam would be much different?
Even without the today super weapons, the US could just continue to bomb North Vietnam for another week or two and it would have surrendered. North Vietnameses told us this after 1975 and wondered why the US never wanted to cross the DMZ. I think the politics lost the war not the troops.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by guiseppewv


I don't think I was lecturing him in how the military works, I was mearly giving a counterpoint to his point. :) And, besides, I have to agree with eSDee that just b/c he is in the military doesn't mean that he is the foremost authority on the military or military tactics. Although he doesn't have different insight from those who are not in the military.

How long have you been in eSDee?

I hear you guisep. Actually I have been out of the Reserves since 2000, but I joined Active Duty in '91.


Originally posted by whitak

sometimes, i use a term like "lecturing" in a somewhat non-literal way to ehance the perceived humor value (in my own mind at least) of my posts :)

and like esdee said, i don't think he's the expert just because he happened to serve in the military. but there are a lot of instances where people treat him like he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when he discusses military issues. i respect what he says simply because he's been there, and i haven't. i don't necessarily think he provides the final answer, or the only answer, but an informed perspective. and i just want people to realize that :)


Thanks buddy :thumb: I probably just need to articulate my argument better if people think I don't know what I am talking about. It's hard to do that though when I'm stealing a minute or two away from work when The Man isn't looking ;)

[Shaq34_KB8]

When you bring up California, you can blame the Repubs. Even Dems were sick of Gray Davis and ready to throw him out. However, you guys were stupid enough to select Bill Simon in the primaries. Bad move with his shady business deals and conservative philosophies taking center stage. Riordan was moderate and respected enough to earn some Dems votes. I would've voted for him. Davis sucks but Simon would've been worse.