Remember the good old days?


by Zero
Tags: days, remember
Shadow
Shadow is offline
#19
Aug26-03, 01:48 PM
P: 120
Hmmm...and somehow her looks matter? Why do you keep bringing that up?
Keep bring it up? Maybe because you brought it up here:

Oh, and an insult to her looks
so I brought it up again. Do you have a problem with everything I post?
Fine if you want a real attack how about they are politically blind morons that only do what the public want and won't take a step up to do something that is actually good for the nation or the world.
Zero
Zero is offline
#20
Aug26-03, 01:49 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by Shadow
Keep bring it up? Maybe because you brought it up here:



so I brought it up again. Do you have a problem with everything I post?
Fine if you want a real attack how about they are politically blind morons that only do what the public want and won't take a step up to do something that is actually good for the nation or the world.
Well, you made a comment on topic...care to support that claim? "They are morons" isn't much more convincing than "She is ugly", you know?
Shadow
Shadow is offline
#21
Aug26-03, 08:03 PM
P: 120
If you are a president you are supposed to help the country correct? How does beraking down the military, and cutting pay to those in the military help? How does revealing military secrets to known enemies (or certainly not allies) help? In a perfect world with world peace going strong, sure go ahead and break down the military but the 90's were certainly not a time of peace in the world and that was the wrong thing to do.
Zero
Zero is offline
#22
Aug27-03, 01:40 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by Shadow
*edit:off-topic..see how that works?*

anyways if you are a president you are supposed to help the country correct? How does beraking down the military, and cutting pay to those in the military help? How does revealing military secrets to known enemies (or certainly not allies) help? In a perfect world with world peace going strong, sure go ahead and break down the military but the 90's were certainly not a time of peace in the world and that was the wrong thing to do.
Well, Clinton needed to scale down the military, hell, someone had to! Trimming pork from the military was necessary in order to pay for more useful programs, and Bush's current spoending certainly doesn't support the military.(I speak from some small experience, I was enlisted in the Marines from 1994-98...and when did you serve?) Of course, Clinton cared a bit more about spending on people, and less about funneling taxpayer dollars to his business partners, like Bush and Cheney do.
Shadow
Shadow is offline
#23
Aug27-03, 11:33 AM
P: 120
I think he should have left the military alone. If you breakdown the military then you have less of a defense against terrorist attacks which are not just a threat to the united states, but to every country in the world; well, except those that support terrorism. The point is that he got as many threats of terrorism as bush did in his first months of office before 9/11 and he took them less seriously than bush. He broke down the military while receiving the same threats as bush did except clinton wasnt the one blamed.
Zero
Zero is offline
#24
Aug27-03, 12:36 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by Shadow
I think he should have left the military alone. If you breakdown the military then you have less of a defense against terrorist attacks which are not just a threat to the united states, but to every country in the world; well, except those that support terrorism. The point is that he got as many threats of terrorism as bush did in his first months of office before 9/11 and he took them less seriously than bush. He broke down the military while receiving the same threats as bush did except clinton wasnt the one blamed.
You can't fight terrorists with tanks, no matter what the Bush administration claims. You certainly don't fight terrorism with overpriced, unwieldy artillery pieces, or a unworkable missle defense 'sheild'. And, of course, Clinton's administration twarted a few terrorist attacks, and actively targeted Osama bin Laden, a mission that was hindered by the wasteful and unconstitutional impeachment efforts by the anti-America branch of the Republican Party, which now controls the whole thing, apparently.
Shadow
Shadow is offline
#25
Aug27-03, 02:29 PM
P: 120
No you cant fight terrorists with tanks, I was thinking the psychological effect. You would hvae had ot be blind to not see the clinton administration breaking down the military, they had failed to destroy the WTC buildings in 1993 so they decided to plan again obviously. When you see the worlds leading nation and superpower breaking down its military thats a big thing, and terrorists would take advantage of it. Do you think they would have wanted to do that in either Bush administration? (88-92 for father and 2000-2004 for current president) both had/have a more powerful military making it less apealing for terrorists to attack, for they would not want to lose a war and die out would they? So they attacked before the military really got built up again, when bush had only been in office about 8 months. Obviously they underestimated the military because they "lost" the war (it isn't over yet) but the taliban and al queada are basically deminished. However, I believe that if we had a larger, more powerful, active military then the terrorists wouldnt have risked their extinction.
Zero
Zero is offline
#26
Aug27-03, 02:34 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
You should probably find a more accurate term than 'breaking down the millitary'[ since that wasn't what happened. The military was downsides, and rightly so. It could probably use about half the money being alloted to it, even now. Clinton was right in knowing that just spending more money on any military wasn't a good idea. During the 90s, the budget was tight, but we got some major advancements in low-budget items that made a difference.

Plus, you continue to act as though a stronger military force does anything about terrorism., It doesn't, except probably encourage more terrorism. Thinking we can win a 'war on terrorism' by military means is a huge mistake. Then again, there is a saying that applies so well to the neocons: 'when the only tool you have is a hammer, ever problem begins to look like a nail.' Clinton was obviously smarter about foreign policy than the neocons are, because he actually lives in teh real world, where not every problem is a 'nail'.
kat
kat is offline
#27
Aug27-03, 07:35 PM
kat's Avatar
P: 58
Originally posted by Zero
Well, Clinton needed to scale down the military, hell, someone had to! Trimming pork from the military was necessary in order to pay for more useful programs, and Bush's current spoending certainly doesn't support the military.(I speak from some small experience, I was enlisted in the Marines from 1994-98...and when did you serve?) Of course, Clinton cared a bit more about spending on people, and less about funneling taxpayer dollars to his business partners, like Bush and Cheney do.
Spending on people? Did you forget Mogadishu? When Les Aspin and his staff refused armor for the forces operating there? Is that how clinton "cared a bit more"?
Shadow
Shadow is offline
#28
Aug27-03, 11:19 PM
P: 120
You should probably find a more accurate term than 'breaking down the millitary'[ since that wasn't what happened. The military was downsides, and rightly so. It could probably use about half the money being alloted to it, even now. Clinton was right in knowing that just spending more money on any military wasn't a good idea. During the 90s, the budget was tight, but we got some major advancements in low-budget items that made a difference.

Plus, you continue to act as though a stronger military force does anything about terrorism., It doesn't, except probably encourage more terrorism. Thinking we can win a 'war on terrorism' by military means is a huge mistake. Then again, there is a saying that applies so well to the neocons: 'when the only tool you have is a hammer, ever problem begins to look like a nail.' Clinton was obviously smarter about foreign policy than the neocons are, because he actually lives in teh real world, where not every problem is a 'nail'.

Interesting. In your first sentence you ignored what my last post said completely, instead saying I should rephrase something I said several posts back. And he would not have been spending more money if he had left it alone, Bush only had to build it up because of clinton.

In your second paragraph you continue to ignore my last post. I mentioned the psychological effects it would have. i'm not going to repeat my last post again so take a better look at it if you want.
schwarzchildradius
schwarzchildradius is offline
#29
Aug28-03, 01:52 AM
schwarzchildradius's Avatar
P: 179
Shad- you seem really ticked, but maybe its a fight with Zero & not a real argument against Clinton?
You say he 'broke down' the military, but it's really not exactly true. In 1989, the Cold War ended, with the fall of the Soviet Empire (Poland, remember? The labor union brought it down, how ironic). Clinton didn't have to worry about fighting the Russians in world-war III, and it was indeed one of his campaign promises to balance the budget and erase the deficit (see 1991 presidential debates, I'll send you a copy if you wish).
they had failed to destroy the WTC buildings in 1993
That's true, and the Clinton admin. left Bush a lot of intelligence on al quada terrorists that Bush & co. simply ignored for the first 8 months, including plans to use passenger airliners for attacks on cities.
And to say that it is somehow Clinton's fault for the terrorist attacks is illogical- the terrorists hate america regardless of the President in charge. Training videos show them shooting at images of Clinton as well as Bush. The terrorists in Iraq are obviously not afraid of our massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, f-117's, b-52's, any of our hardware, or they wouldn't be whacking our guys.
Zero
Zero is offline
#30
Aug28-03, 02:01 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by Shadow
Interesting. In your first sentence you ignored what my last post said completely, instead saying I should rephrase something I said several posts back. And he would not have been spending more money if he had left it alone, Bush only had to build it up because of clinton.

In your second paragraph you continue to ignore my last post. I mentioned the psychological effects it would have. i'm not going to repeat my last post again so take a better look at it if you want.
Yeah, let's talk about a psychological effect. Weak Third World nations see America stomping around like a schoolyard bully, with the world's most powerful army. The psychologic effect is to feel powerless to negotiate, because America can take whatever it wants from you, occupy your country, give your natural resources to American companies, etc. All those tanks and bombs mean you cannot strike directly. Therefore, you will become a terrorist.

I am not advocating eliminating the military altogether, or even massive cuts...I am just saying that more tanks aren't going to scare a terrorist.
Zero
Zero is offline
#31
Aug28-03, 02:08 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by kat
Spending on people? Did you forget Mogadishu? When Les Aspin and his staff refused armor for the forces operating there? Is that how clinton "cared a bit more"?
The Republicans wouldn't have been there at all, if it were up to them. Yes, he could have done more, but it is not something that a Republican can use against Clinton.

[:D]


Good to see you here, Kat! I know you may not like Clinton, but at least you bring legitimate complaints to the table.
Shadow
Shadow is offline
#32
Aug28-03, 08:27 AM
P: 120
That's true, and the Clinton admin. left Bush a lot of intelligence on al quada terrorists that Bush & co. simply ignored for the first 8 months, including plans to use passenger airliners for attacks on cities.
And to say that it is somehow Clinton's fault for the terrorist attacks is illogical- the terrorists hate america regardless of the President in charge. Training videos show them shooting at images of Clinton as well as Bush. The terrorists in Iraq are obviously not afraid of our massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, f-117's, b-52's, any of our hardware, or they wouldn't be whacking our guys.
I did not say it was clinton's fault, I basically said it wasnt bush's and that although he got the blame, clinton had received the same warnings and did nothing. He could have at least tried to something instead of handing everything to Bush. And we dont know what our CIA/FBI people were doing about it at the time, maybe they couldn't stop it. how do you stop a plane from crashing into a building. Blow it up of course. But then theres the good ol human instincts. You would hesitate to fire for at least a second, if you knew that this plane was full of your own people, adn that second could have meant anything. Then there is the fact that when it became clear that it was no accident, it was too late to dispatch fighters to shoot the planes down...how would clinton have done better?
Zero
Zero is offline
#33
Aug28-03, 10:23 AM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by Shadow
I did not say it was clinton's fault, I basically said it wasnt bush's and that although he got the blame, clinton had received the same warnings and did nothing. He could have at least tried to something instead of handing everything to Bush. And we dont know what our CIA/FBI people were doing about it at the time, maybe they couldn't stop it. how do you stop a plane from crashing into a building. Blow it up of course. But then theres the good ol human instincts. You would hesitate to fire for at least a second, if you knew that this plane was full of your own people, adn that second could have meant anything. Then there is the fact that when it became clear that it was no accident, it was too late to dispatch fighters to shoot the planes down...how would clinton have done better?
That's funny...Clinton DID stop a scheme to fly a plane into the CIA headquarters. Bush had a year to prepare, Clinton had laid the groundwork for a "Homeland Security Agency"...Bush had another idea.

"Operation 42% of the first 7 months of my term, I am going to be on vacation"
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#34
Aug28-03, 01:23 PM
Mentor
P: 21,998
Originally posted by Zero
The Republicans wouldn't have been there at all, if it were up to them. Yes, he could have done more, but it is not something that a Republican can use against Clinton.
?? Check again. The troops were sent there by Bush. Their mission was changed (mission requirements went up and their support slashed) by Clinton. Les Aspen took the fall for it (he resigned) but it was Clinton who really made the decisions.
Clinton had laid the groundwork for.....
Clinton gave a lot of advice, studies, etc to Bush. But think about it objectively: If someone gives you a plan to do something that he didn't do himself, whats the first thing to come to your mind? (A: Well if this is so important, why didn't HE do it? (A2: LEADERSHIP - or rather lack thereof)).
America can take whatever it wants from you, occupy your country, give your natural resources to American companies, etc.
Missed this one before. Thats a crime called THEFT. You are accusing the US gov't of stealing Iraq's oil. Maybe you are wondering why the UN isn't raising hell over it, but then maybe not - you're smart enough to know thats not what is happening. So that leaves another possibility.
Zero
Zero is offline
#35
Aug28-03, 01:52 PM
Zero's Avatar
P: 1,509
Originally posted by russ_watters
Clinton gave a lot of advice, studies, etc to Bush. But think about it objectively: If someone gives you a plan to do something that he didn't do himself, whats the first thing to come to your mind? (A: Well if this is so important, why didn't HE do it? (A2: LEADERSHIP - or rather lack thereof)).
Let's take this one...I don't defend Clinton on your first point, and your last one is right-wing spin, not worth bothering with. If a president spends 7 years fighting terrorism sucessfully, as Clinton did, and comes to the conclusion that radical measures need to be taken, what should he do? Obviously he should act on those radical plans...except in this instance. The planning for the next phase in the war on terror, the creation of a 'Homeland Security Agency' and other actions, was done in the last months of teh Clinton administration. Rather than hand Bush a war in progress, he turned the plan over to Bush, with the hopes that HE would act on it, with his own ideas and staff involved. Instead, Bush went on vacation.
kat
kat is offline
#36
Aug28-03, 10:16 PM
kat's Avatar
P: 58
Originally posted by Zero
Let's take this one...I don't defend Clinton on your first point, and your last one is right-wing spin, not worth bothering with. If a president spends 7 years fighting terrorism sucessfully, as Clinton did, and comes to the conclusion that radical measures need to be taken, what should he do? Obviously he should act on those radical plans...except in this instance. The planning for the next phase in the war on terror, the creation of a 'Homeland Security Agency' and other actions, was done in the last months of teh Clinton administration. Rather than hand Bush a war in progress, he turned the plan over to Bush, with the hopes that HE would act on it, with his own ideas and staff involved. Instead, Bush went on vacation.
Neither president did more then "planning" on homeland security prior to 9-11 because, quite frankly, neither of them had enough public support to be able to do more then "plan" such a controversial dept. until after Americans got the UNOWHAT scared out of them. Silly to even argue that point. As for fighting terrorism, isn't the CIA, and wasn't the head of (then and now) the CIA a clinton apointee? With the failures of cia under clinton against terrorist during his term, why the heck would Bush retain the same leadership?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
remember log in. Forum Feedback & Announcements 5
Do you remember... General Discussion 7
Remember Me ??? General Discussion 12
Remember me? General Discussion 6
What happened to good, clean COMEDY, like the old days! General Discussion 1