I miss Bill Clinton.

[guest031612-2]

Like WYD said: The times always makes the man- never the other way around.

"I did NOT...have sex...with that WOOOOman."

"That depends what your definition of is is."

Best lies ever.

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Point well taken on Gulf of Tonkin, I stand corrected! No doubt, G of T was a historic foreign policy mistake made by an American President from another generation (almost 50 years ago). The point I was trying to make with my original post was to counter kingorpawn's ridiculous assertion that "anybody that thinks Obama won't do the same is mistaken. Obama is as much capable of starting another war as Bush was, maybe worse."

As for kop's claim that Obama "is as much capable, maybe worse" of starting another war as Bush was, there is absolutely nothing Obama has done (including the targeted Drone attacks) that could possibly justify an assertion that he is more capable of starting an Iraq type mistake. Trying to say Obama is "maybe worse" than Bush in the war starting arena is not much different than saying: since the Green Bay Packers lost two games this football season, they are "as much capable" of losing all of their games as the 2008 Detroit Lions were when they went 0-16.

Obama is unpredictable. That's the problem. Like DT said, Obama might be willing to allow Iran to build nuclear weapons. And if that happens, the chances of them using them against Israel or the US, even a small nuke is very possible by either Iran using themselves or giving them to terrorist. 9/11 will be a minor scratch to what a nuke will do. All they need is one. Unlike the US, Israel cannot afford one nuke hitting them even if its a small one. That consequences of that will be worse than anything Bush did. So what you are saying is that Obama is not willing to go to war to prevent it.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by kingorpawn

So what you are saying is that Obama is not willing to go to war to prevent it.

Ehhhhhh no, that is not what I said. What I said was, Obama is smart enough to not wage a 7 1/2 year, $1 trillion war, at a cost of 4500+ American lives, searching for WMD's that no longer exist.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Ehhhhhh no, that is not what I said. What I said was, Obama is smart enough to not wage a 7 1/2 year, $1 trillion war, at a cost of 4500+ American lives, searching for WMD's that no longer exist.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

You don't know that. If something like 9/11 would have happen during Obama's watch, you don't know how he would have responded. You don't know what he would do under the same circumstances. You need to stop thinking that you know what Obama will or won't do. You don't know. He's unpredictable and circumstances are going to force him to make certain decisions. Bush thought the Iraq war was going to be 1 or 2 year thing. A few months to destroy Iraq's military, remove Saddam and his sons and another year or 2 to rebuild the country.
Secondly, the information that the US was getting that Saddam had WMD was not exactly made up because Saddam made it look like he did have them, but it wasn't to deceive the US. It was directed towards Iran. Iraq was weaken after the 1st gulf war because of the sanctions and the defeat of its military. Saddam was concerned Iran might try to invade so he created the illusion that he had WMD to keep Iran in check. You need to understand that Saddam was a very paranoid individual. Saddam did not believe the US would invade. He thought that the United States intelligence capabilities were so good like those of the CIA's that he figured they would know he was making it up. According to Saddam's general's up to the moment the US invaded, Saddam was saying, 'They won't invade' because it didn't make any sense. He was wrong. The mistake was made on both sides that had a heavy cost on both sides. A cost that has gone beyond money. I think the Iraq war was a tragic and horrible mistake. I was there, my brother was there who now has PTSD.

[Thudog]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Of course, what's not to miss from Clinton's times?

Oh wait....here's a few things....

1. Passed the most restrictive gun control legislation since 1968 by signing the Brady Bill and the Assault weapons ban. It was so restrictive that cops had to get letters from their Chief of Police so that they could buy a standard 15 round magazine for their pistols. The average citizen simply couldn't buy them at all. Just one example of just how retarded this legislation was.

2. 1993- After a famine has killed hundreds of thousands of Somali's, the U.N. sends in troops to safeguard the food shipments which are being hijacked by warlords while the people starve to death. 24 UN Peackeepers are ambushed and massacred by forces loyal to Aidid. The U.S. sends in Special Operations forces to find and capture Aidid. After 19 Rangers, CAG and other Special Operations groups were killed and dozens wounded in Somalia, Clinton tucks tail and orders all military personnel out of that country. He wouldn't allow the military to do what needed to be done. We see how well that's worked out for the Somali people.

3. 1994- Having already established that cowardice is the cornerstone of his foreign Policy, Clinton and his Sec of Disaster Albright stand by and do NOTHING as 800,000 Rwandan's are systematically massacred. The biggest genocide since the Holocaust and Clinton does absolutely nothing.
Now a cynic may pick up on the fact that both of these countries had large, mostly black populations but hey, he's a good guy and surely race played no role in whether he thought it was worth it or not to send troops to intervene.

4. Now let's look at how many times the U.S. or our people and interests were attacked under Clinton's watch:

a) February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

b) April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600.

c) Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

d) June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

e) Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan. Results for the millions of dollars worth of missiles fired??? NOTHING!

f) Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.


All of these attacks carried out under Clinton's watch. Why? Because he showed his cowardice and aversion to utilizing our military from the very beginning of his Presidency. It was open season on the USA and it's interests around the world as far as terror organizations were concerned.

Oh, and not to get into a long, drawn out debate again on the issue of the housing crisis but few experts disagree (unlike some here I'm sure) that Clinton played a role (by far wasn't the only one but certainly ONE of the people responsible) in the recent housing crisis our Country experienced.

Yeah, what's not to miss? Well except for all the above among many other things. To list them all would take up more time than I'm interested in investing in the subject matter tonight.

I would assume this makes Reagan a coward? Appears the open season started in the early 80s, not with Clinton

Clinton tucked tail in somalia after 19 deaths? How about doing the same thing after 12.5x as many in Beirut?

As far as Rwanda, at least he has consistently referenced not doing anything as his big regret. The entire world has turned a blind eye to Africa.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by Thudog

I would assume this makes Reagan a coward? Appears the open season started in the early 80s, not with Clinton

Clinton tucked tail in somalia after 19 deaths? How about doing the same thing after 12.5x as many in Beirut?

As far as Rwanda, at least he has consistently referenced not doing anything as his big regret. The entire world has turned a blind eye to Africa.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

Actually, since you brought it up, as far as Islamic terrorists declaring open season on the USA, it started with Carter. His complete impotence in regards to the seizing and taking of hostages of the American Embassy in Teheran emboldened Hezbollah and led them to plan further attacks on our Marines and Embassy in Beirut in the early 80's. While Reagan was advised that sending further ground troops into Beirut after the bombing would be a bad idea, he certainly didn't hesitate to use force when necessary. Just ask Qaddafi. Beirut was such a quagmire involving so many different factions that to sort it all out would have been near impossible UNLESS the gloves were taken off and the place was leveled which in my opinion it damn near should have been. Give non-combatants a chance to evacuate and then level every sector of that city that contained one type of militia or another.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

While Reagan was advised that sending further ground troops into Beirut after the bombing would be a bad idea, he certainly didn't hesitate to use force when necessary. Just ask Qaddafi.

Then surely you must have sided with Obama when the decision was made to oust Qaddafi earlier this year! Or was it acceptable for Reagan to "use force" and not Obama?

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Then surely you must have sided with Obama when the decision was made to oust Qaddafi earlier this year! Or was it acceptable for Reagan to "use force" and not Obama?

Obama didn't do a damn thing to oust Qaddafi.

[DTorrchia]

Reagan wanted to send a message by delivering that air strike against Qaddafi. Obama wanted regime change. Now in general I have no issue with instituting regime change when a crazy man like Qaddafi is in charge. Having said that though....you mentioned that Obama wouldn't make the kind of mistake Bush made. Well, fair enough, he let the Libyan people do most of the ground fighting while we just supplied air power. I'm o.k. with that. What I'm not o.k. with and where he doesn't seem to have learned from the mistakes Bush made was not knowing what kind of regime will fill the vaccum created by our dismantling Qaddafi's regime. Qaddafi in the years since 9/11 had started to work with the international community in an effort to avoid the very fate he met. He gave up much of his chemical weapons, gave up on trying to create an atomic weapons program and in general seemed to have given up on sponsoring and supporting terrorist organizations. The jury is still out on what kind of regime Libya will have. Will it be friendly toward the West? Will Islamic hardliners eventually win control over the government? Lots of questions that still need answering. Everyone bashed Bush for not anticipating the Shiite/Sunni ethnic civil war that broke out in Iraq. Yet Obama seemed just as unconcerned with who would take over in Libya after we helped remove Qaddafi through military power.

[Thudog]

Reagan bombed Libya a bit, Clinton sent missiles...

Shouldn't expect much destruction in Afghanistan...after all, there are not any good targets there. Just ask the Bush Administration, there was discussion about giving bin Laden a pass and going straight to Iraq

[Thudog]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Obama didn't do a damn thing to oust Qaddafi.

Wouldn't have happened without us support. Would have slaughtered thousands and they would have given up.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Reagan wanted to send a message by delivering that air strike against Qaddafi. Obama wanted regime change.

I do not personally believe that Obama had any more to do with regime change in Libya than Reagan had to do with the fall of Poland. In both instances, it resulted from an uprising by the people. No doubt there was a level of US support that factored in greatly to the eventual success of the uprisings. But it was an uprising of the people that brought it about.

And yes, I do miss Bill Clinton. He was a President for the ages!

[Guest020813-03]

I relate the "good ole Clinton days" with the "good ole ASPD days. Those were the days, Good Times