Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

LordBeaverbrook · 10-27-2012, 07:08 PM

Love it, Republicans declare wars or invade and then call it all Democratic fails when there are casualties. Get a life.

Bush got us into Somalia (though it is commonly known as a Clinton failure even thought the mission achieved it's intended goal), the Major General in charge of the "Black Hawk Down" mission write a 3 page letter to the President and Secretary of Defence taking full blame for a mission that actually achieved it's goal. Everybody does know that the President is the one JD that make tactical decisions in a theatre half way around the world though, right? Beside, Delta Force, Ranger teams and Seal operators always work with armour support. All those takes and APCs make their missions some much more stealthy LOL.

Why do Dems seem to constantly have to get us out of wars that Republicans start? The one exception was Vietnam which Eisenhower got us in, Dems escalated and screwed it up, though it was likely unwinnable unless you turned Vietnam into the Sahara desert, and Nixon got us out.

The only countries we should ever have to actually fight are Mexico and Canada, but the good thing about that is we could probably win those!

JD Barleycorn · 10-27-2012, 08:26 PM

I'll answer the Indiana Jones rapist first, Bush sent troops into Somalia to feed people. That was their sole mission, feed people. Along came Bill and he thought it would be really neat to build a nation. Remember his quote about one man's terrorist could be someone's George Washington? He said it. He started giving control of the food to the warlords because one of them was going to be the savior of their people. Instead they began fighting over the food and killing each other. General Garrison, that is his name, requested armor and attack helicopters from the White House. This was detailed in a report written by Bill Gertz.

So to recap; Bush went in to feed the people and Clinton wanted to nation build. Bush gave the military what they requested and Clinton took it away and didn't give it back when requested. I call this a Clinton fuck up.

As for Novocaine; I didn't attack your handle, I attacked your spelling ability. Are you aware that Bush was on the ground at Baton Rouge speaking to Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin on the 2nd of September. She was asked, begged by Mayor Nagin, to federalize relief efforts. She refused. In the meantime (pay attention) Bush had moved navy ships into position, had the national guard working in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. FEMA was waiting on the governor. Go find out about everything that was done by Bush in other states with the permission of their governors. Now you can complain about how things developed with looters, political jockying, and egos pushing each other but only a fool would keep saying that Bush did nothing and that is what this is all about. He did something, he did everything within his power at the time. Can you say that about Obama?

Piece of advice, quit blaming everything on Bush. That time has passed. You're going to be like a hippy in 20 years still blaming everything on Bush.

As for the 42 days...Clinton would not allow the Bush people to start ramping up to govern the country. Time getting people notified and in their office was lost. I suggest that not having lost that 42 days would have made a difference since, according to you, Clinton has so much information on the terrorist that he would have made the transition as seamless as possible. He didn't. He didn't care or he didn't know half of what you claim. I say again, Clinton was responsible for OBL being in Afghanistan and not in prison. Clinton knew that OBL would be operational again in 2001. Clinton is the godfather of 9/11.

novacain · 10-27-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

.
Piece of advice, quit blaming everything on Clinton. That time has passed. You're going to be like a hippy in 20 years still blaming everything on Clinton.

Here Pot, fixed it for you.

LordBeaverbrook · 10-27-2012, 11:41 PM

Nice novacain! Yeah yeah yeah JDB, you can't discuss anything without resorting to ad hominem attacks and insults and you seem to not be able to stand anyone who doesn't look at anything the same way you do, including facts.

"Operation Restore Hope placed the Special Forces in positions that they were not specifically trained for, most notably crowd control and urban fighting.

The situation began in 1992 during the Bush Administration. Violence in Somalia carried on through the 1980s and 90s. Warlords that have risen to power were at war with one another. As the world responded to feed the starving citizens of the country, the warlords and the cronies they paid were taking the food as they came straight off the boats and trucks. Warlords paid up 'protection money' on these goods and in some cases had the good stolen from themselves by the very same gunmen hired to protect them. As the voices of the world grew louder for a response, President Bush committed troops to the region in an effort to stem the power of the warlords and feed the hungry. As the special forces operatives made their way to the shores of the coastal country under the cover of darkness, they were greeted by camera crews and spotlights of the international reporting agencies. Already, the movements of the special forces operatives were compromised."

I wasn't blaming Bush at all, in fact I think we (and the Germans especially, not to mention the Indians, Chinese and all other advanced and advancing nations) should do more of this (but not start wars or call drug or terrorist initiatives Wars), but with troops and personnel trained to do it. Bottom line, the operation succeeded, but there was bloodshed. Soldiers sign up in an army to fight, countries go to war or start operations like this knowing it is dangerous and likely there will be casualties on both sides. Unfortunately, when the inevitable happens, everyone is shocked and blame apportioned. I was just commenting that you were wrong to apportion blame (unless you know so far much more than I that Special Forces usually are backed up by armour and Presidents usually are directly involved in remote military tactics) and it is ironic that that people remember it as Clinton's mess when Bush put us there (to feed people peacefully in the middle of a civil war under the watchful eyes of warlords... how thoughtful of him) and the General in charge took the entire blame for a successful (achieved its objective) operation. Then we pulled out because the Republicans howled. Your rant is totally skewed and completely partisan. Get some objective.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Garrison

JD Barleycorn · 10-27-2012, 11:49 PM

I think you missed the point of the original post; whether or not a president took any action at all without regard to the result. Further posts wanted to discuss the results of the action(s). LBJ took no action in 1968 and Obama took no action in 2012. Both are guilty of betrayal which is to many a far more serious crime than screwing the pooch. It shows a lack of character.

i'va biggen · 10-28-2012, 07:39 AM

Actually your constant attacking the pres on a hooker board makes no sense to me.You should be traveling with Romney knocking doors getting out the vote.

JD Barleycorn · 10-28-2012, 08:31 AM

I don't walk and knock, my job is to phone.

Guest123018-4 · 10-28-2012, 08:44 AM

Hey LilRacist, how you like the Democrat plantation?

i'va biggen · 10-28-2012, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I don't walk and knock, my job is to phone.

Walking is more healthful,and will keep you off the computer..LOL

JD Barleycorn · 10-28-2012, 03:55 PM

Walking is not as easy as it used to be.

i'va biggen · 10-28-2012, 06:06 PM

That is too bad..

LordBeaverbrook · 10-29-2012, 10:56 AM

Another epic Obama failure - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8UP...ature=youtu.be

The woman in the video states clearly that the government can direct the deer on where to cross so Obama has not done this and if anyone dies in a deer related traffic accident that is tantamount to murder!

CuteOldGuy · 10-29-2012, 11:20 AM

Austxjr, that was hysterical!!! It reminds of the debate in the South Dakota legislature over whether to implement daylight savings time. One farmer testified that his "crops were getting too much sun as it was. Another hour of sunlight will kill them."

Funny, funny stuff. Thanks, Austxjr!

steamyromance · 10-29-2012, 12:12 PM

Well... Seems like all of you forgot the Fair Housing Act ( Clinton ) led to the beginning of the derivative ( didnt a physicist come up with them )( he was not a wall streeter , just a very smart guy ) ( he also got very rich ) eventually leading to the Worlds worst financial meltdown..
This has cost countless lives, businesses, small and large fortunes to be lost. Not to mention the misery of people all over the USA !

Texas Contrarian · 10-29-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steamyromance

Well... Seems like all of you forgot the Fair Housing Act ( Clinton ) led to the beginning of the derivative ( didnt a physicist come up with them )( he was not a wall streeter , just a very smart guy ) ( he also got very rich ) eventually leading to the Worlds worst financial meltdown..
This has cost countless lives, businesses, small and large fortunes to be lost. Not to mention the misery of people all over the USA !

Just for the record, what is commonly known as the Fair Housing Act was signed by Lyndon Johnson in the late 1960s.

And, more interestingly, the history of derivatives dates to much earlier times than most people realize. LSU finance professor Don Chance has done some fascinating work in this area.

http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~gye/derivativeshistory.pdf

Of course, various mathematicians developed derivative evaluation and trading models over the last few decades, some of which contributed grievously to the financial meltdown of 2008.