Bill Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.
625:

I think there are many things that you don't understand... one of which is that many things cannot be PROVEN necessarily until they happen.

For instance, I cannot PROVE with direct knowledge that the Sun is a hot firey ball in the sky made up of dense gases. But that's the best guess of science. There are many other examples.

The websites I provided are 3 of hundreds of websites on the topic; I have neither the time nor inclination to read through them all for exact information. I was speaking in less-than-precise but still accurate language in the earlier postings....

As I said before, there are many ex-Russian scientists that defected from the Soviet Union and there are many nuclear weaponry components that are unaccounted for. A small nuclear device, may not the exact size of a backpack or briefcase, but small-ish nonetheless (maybe a suitcase, certainly something that would fit into an automobile trunk). These devices that the US and USSR built, and I'm sure the blueprints weren't destroyed and I'm sure they could be improved upon by a motivated, wealthy, evil dictator (ala Saddam) were multi-kiloton devices, capable of being portable by one person and destroying major metropolitan areas.

Would it "level" a major city. In a manner of speaking, yes and no. The end result is the same thing. Despite "some" buildings and "some" people surviving, the thrust is the same -- massive structural and environmental damage and millions dead and injured.

Evidently there are others, for instance our national leaders, that agree with the above and that was cited as a main reason for taking on aggressors who have shown an interest in purchasing the components to build WMDs.

Now, 625, if you chose to stick you head in the sand and ignore what should be plainly obvious, that's your call.
 
MK11:

Saddam was an evil dictator who has a history of building and using WMDs against his own people and enemies. He was a sworn enemy of the US. He had been suspected of funding terrorists against the US. He was suspected of building chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, which he could either use against his enemies, hold the region hostage, or sell them to the highest bidder. He refused seventeen times, yes, seventeen times he broke his peace agreement with the US and NATO to allow weapons inspectors in, over a period of 11 years. He was a brutal man that allowed and even was the overseer of brutality, murders, rapes, torture, theft, and countless other attrocities. The US and UN gave him COUNTLESS chances to cease his behavior and cooperate and he refused.

We removed him from power in days after declaring war. We captured him. He is on trial. He is no longer in power. 50,000,000 people are free and can participate in free democracy including elections. Peace will soon be restored ot the region. For the naysayers--- Even the United States had a rocky start and still has difficultly with the transfer of power.

Yes, as I said before, it is tragic that it cost the lives of our brave soldiers and many innocent civilians. We gave Saddam EVERY possible OUT to avoid this war. The war was unavoidable.

While war isn't perfect, I commend the efforts and the relatively swift victory and relatively (historically speaking) low casualties. But, for those that like to complain, nothing is ever good enough for the left wing.

I suppose you think it would be wiser to have allowed him to stay in power.
 
I wholeheartedly disagree that Clinton was "A GREAT MAN" as a ridiculous statement.

Great men don't cheat on their wives;
Great men don't lie - under oath no less - to the citizens of the US;
Great men aren't asleep at the wheel whilst our enemies silently AND loudly plan against us. How many terrorist attacks occurred under Clinton's 8 years?
Great men don't dodge the Vietnam draft and responsibilities owed to this nation;
It's also speculated that he had MANY people killed because they were set to testify against him or knew harmful things against him....

Clinton and his administration made very poor military, defense, tactical, and planning decisions again and again and again....
Click to expand...

As I said in my previous post; you can't only look at the parts of the picture that you find pleasing. You MUST look at the bigger picture. Nor can you use mere speculation as substance for your argument (as you well know).

Everyone is entitled to personal happiness. The fact that Clinton chose to lie about his affair reflects poorly on his PERSONAL choices but not his public ones. The fact that we felt it necessary to intrude into his PERSONAL affair just to demean him speaks poorly of us.

Clinton's political focus & agenda was based on a peaceful world. Yes, the USS Cole had been attacked but that wasn't an attack against unarmed/unwarned civilian targets like the WTC. It was a psuedo-military strike against a military target. IOW, a legitimate strike. By itself it has nothing to do with whether or not Clinton was a good leader. You must look at the bigger picture. What was Clinton's response to the USS Cole attack? Was it appropriate at the time given the state of the world THEN? I think so, but his advisors, who were privy to a lot more intel than I will ever be, also must have thought so. As did the rest of the world since other countries failed to rise up in united protest against us.

Asleep at the wheel? I think not given the state of the world at the time. What I also believe is that a lot of good things happen when people aren't looking merely because there aren't fireworks to announce them. Great things happen all the time and no one is supposed to notice when they do. Nor is one supposed to crow about how they made stuff like that happen. You're supposed to be surprised when you discover those good things and angry when someone else tries to steal them from you by slight of hand.

During his Presidency, Clinton followed the course charted by his predecessors in world unification and conciliation, created protections that expanded our personal liberties and freedoms, & worked WITH the rest of the world to help solve world problems. He didn't unilaterally invade another country, supress the citizenry of his own nation, or foster disharmony and dissent among his populace for his own advancement.

Clinton, as a human being, was/is an idiot & a jerk. Personally I do not admire him. That doesn't mean what he did for us wasn't a great thing. His voice was our voice and we acted through him to help stabilize the world at home and abroad. And of the 2 faces that President must display, which is more important?

No, I do not admire him. I admire the sacrifice he made for me. And for you.
 
Rob P and Lead counsel Peeeeeeing contest

Lead you are at it again. LOL

Clinton made a few mistakes but as far as cheating on his wife goes they worked it out and that is that.

I would like to be around when History writes about the last few and next couple of Presidents and who was the best as far as for the country.

I think Clinton will be considered a pretty good President. I may be wrong?
In the last few weeks Bush has taken some real hits. It might just be enough to have the country turn against the Right.

One day you are a a lump of coal the next day you are a diamond.

Iwill say one thing for you "Lead" it is easy to know where you are coming from. I believe you really liked Plato in school. Argue for arguements sake.

I do believe you both have good points, always have to be so far off the
middle line of things?

Next you will blame this on me Lead.

Harley
 
"And Clinton sent good men to their graves."

Bush has got him beat on this count. In spades.
Click to expand...

Neither president forced anyone to go to their graves. We have a volunteer force. No one was drafted.
 
Lead I have read some places that the whole briefcase nuke was an urban legend. However a small tactical warhead tip in a backpack detonated crudely with semtex would achieve the same result. Even a cheap dirty bomb fabricated from disued medical or university supplies would be enough to contaminate a wide area.

Fear mongering is just that. To say that Bush has made yoru country safer is ludricrous. To say that Clinton didnt do anything and more or less was the causation of all this crap is narrow minded at best. I am curious as to where you get off judging somebody based on thier morality or lack there of? Is your life so perfect and flaw free that you can judge others? Contrary to some of your statements nothing is as black and white as you make it seem.

Somebody cheats on his wife? This makes him bad at his job?

If the crazies had a nuke they would use it. These are not sofisticated individuals here. These are basic insurgents with homemade conventional weapons for the most part. THey dont wear a uniform and can readily blend into some societies. You could have several sleeper cells in teh US or none. Dont be naive enough to think that your goverment is so tuned in that they can protect your entire country against attack. At best they might keep a few key areas, and things under control.

The best thing to do with terrorist scum is keep on enjoying your normal day to day life..sure be aware..but dont let them ruin your life with fear..when they do they have won. You cant really beat them either. Look at europeans who have dealt with terrorist attacks on their streets for years. They just clean up the mess and get on with it as best they can.

Hmm to many people eager for war. I think politicians should be forced by law to send some of their own family to fight in the front lines of any conflict that they choose to engage thier nation in. Maybe if you lived in a war zone you might think differently. Frankly the last major conflict on US soil was the civil war. CNN isnt the same.

Lead your argument that the Iraqi was inevitable and that you gave Saddam every possible out doesnt hold water. Even Colin Powell (a great man) would disagree with you. To say nothing of Hans Blix. Revisionist history doesnt cut it. The war was avoidable. Iraq presented no immediate threat to the US. They were no WMDs, Iraq hadnt attacked anybody. No sept 11 terrorists were Iraqis,

So I gotta ask did you have to invade?

Dont say its about democracy cause thats got nothing to do with it. Dont say its about saving the Iraqi people, cause thats got nothing to do with it either. There are worst areas with more killing that dont even make it on the news. Look at Rawanda about 900k dead, Congo 3million dead, Sudan, all sorts of places...

but then they didnt have oil did they?

People shouldnt blindly follow their leaders and assume that to disagree with them is unpatriotic...in nothing your constitution should show that you should disagree with your leaders and speak out against them..to ensure that tyrany is never allowed to take hold...
 
To say that Bush has made yoru country safer is ludricrous. To say that Clinton didnt do anything and more or less was the causation of all this crap is narrow minded at best.
Click to expand...

How many unprovoked terrorist attacks and botched military efforts occured in Clinton's 8 years against the US? Waco, WTC, Oklahoma, Somolia, Kenya, USS Cole, etc. How many unprovoked terrorist attacks occured during Bush's first 5+ years in office? One, granted it was catastrophic but it was also HATCHED during the Clinton years and, if Clinton could have been re-elected and if he were re-elected, 9/11 would have occured under Clinton's term.

That said, I feel MUCH safer with Bush than Clinton.

You mentioned other areas of the world where there is suffering. I agree we should attempt to address those areas. However, those areas don't pose a viable WMD threat like OUR INTELLIGENCE said SH did. Don't you read the news?? Our troops DID find evidence of WMDs manufacturing plants and materials in Iraq. HE was a threat! He is no more.

I also see Iraq as a strategic region for spreading peace and stability in the Middle East. This is important because so many terrorists are born there with a hatred for the US. Why not try to change that by showing the positives of democracy? And strategically it is good to have a foothold where the largest oil reserves in the world are located. Until you are ready to stop using oil, I don't see how you have any grounds to complain about this.

In any poll you read, the overwhelming majority of our troops agree with the decision to fight in Iraq and the direction the war has gone.
 
Yes I read the papers and watch the news.

The ones Ive read and the news Ive seen have pretty much stated just about the opposite to what your saying.

Your arguments are incorrect. BOth about motives and the need for invasion. Your own goverment has admitted as much.

Furthermore your also incorrect about where all the oil is. Its not in the middle east. Its up here in ALberta in the oil sands. Lots and lots of it. And we are only to happy to share it with our neighboors provided you stay nice and friendly.

Its difficult to debate with you as I feel you are not perhaps open to new ideas and or suggestion that you perhaps feel arent inline with your own rigid ideas. No offense. But perhaps you should read some more information on these issues to have a more informed viewpoint.
 
459:

Leadcounsel wrote:
I also see Iraq as a strategic "region" for spreading peace and "stability in the Middle East." This is important because so many terrorists are born there with a hatred for the US. Why not try to change that by showing the positives of democracy? And "strategically it is good to have a foothold where the largest oil reserves in the world are located.
Click to expand...

According to this table from the Oil and Gas Journal Volume 102, No. 47, December 10, 2004 gathering data from the US Energy Information Admin. located here, discussion oil reserves:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

It summarized that Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and the UAE have some 700 billion barrels in resever oil IN THE REGION THAT WE'RE ESTABLISHING A STABLE FOOTHOLD WITHIN. Meanwhile, Canada has some 179 billion barrels.

459 stated:
Furthermore your also incorrect about where all the oil is. Its not in the middle east. Its up here in ALberta in the oil sands. Lots and lots of it.
Click to expand...

So, 459, once again YOU are wrong. Canada does NOT have more oil than the middle east. IN fact, the middle east has about 4 times as much oil in reserves as Canada. Why DON'T YOU CHECK THE FACTS before arguing with me?
 
lol you are an angry person arent you? Recheck your figures the deposits are based on technology. Up until recently the oil sands werent being heavily mined as it was cost prohibitive to separate the crude from the dirt.

I think I have your angle now though...are you a student? You seem to like to debate and argue like one in alot of your threads ive read, where situations are painted by you in aboslutes and are either black and or white.

If you reread the oil specs you will note that the Saudi supply and a couple other places over there isnt slated to last all that long.

Perhaps when you get out in the real world youll see things differently, have you travelled much? If this sort of inoffensive comment makes you mad then you gotta ask yourself whether im right or its just your own insecurity, that drives you to never be wrong.

http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm

who you wanna deal with!!! us or the crazies. and we will trade for beer (no beer for lead though :( )
 
Nukes

Proof? Maybe kaboom while your looking,a few links follow
http://www.humanunderground.com/itsdabomb.html
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Hayden_072204,00.html
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4999
Some of this do seem argumentive ,on purpose to stir 5hit up.
All I did was google special forces back pack nuke.
I was shown a training facility long abandoned on Okinawa of all places .where these things were trained with,many yrs past.
And I guess they never nuke tested in Mississippi,Colorado,Alaska,or what were the uther places ?
Yep,they exsist,evreyone with any sense knows it. The last sentence is a very personal opion only,and does not reflect the views of the Staff or members of this forum,only mine,Now I will read on. :)
I never liked clinton from the beginnin g ,esp after cbs did thier event with hilliary and clinton.
But,gun laws etc,talked out of both sides of his mouth.
I had some good info on the juice behind the 94 crimeslime bill, lost most of it.
No real specifics from me,but stay out of my personal private affairs,dont be telling me how ,what when and how much I can own,a real libertarian on this subject.
I think we all know the firearms issue scares the hell out of the powers that be.
What would have happened if say 2ooo armed to the teeth folks ,showed up and surrounded the atf and fbi at the Waco incident,then 2 or 4 or 10,000 more showed up and just said No!
The laws and all that are to scare hail out of us sheeple,keep us off balance.
keep the cash flowing to maintain a supposed need,or some thing.Seletive enforcement and scenic staged televised publicity.
Why isnt clinton hanging from a light post if he did some of the treasonous stuff he is accussed of? And the gore whore as well?
N o controlling authority,sticks in my mind.
I am off of this one.
A couple links on the AWB
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm
http://www.awbansunset.com/
 
459 stated:
If the crazies had a nuke they would use it. These are not sofisticated individuals here. These are basic insurgents with homemade conventional weapons for the most part. THey dont wear a uniform and can readily blend into some societies. You could have several sleeper cells in teh US or none. Dont be naive enough to think that your goverment is so tuned in that they can protect your entire country against attack. At best they might keep a few key areas, and things under control.
Click to expand...

I think it is dangerous to underestimate our very creative and determined and resourceful enemy. And, stating that they would use a nuke if they had one both proves my point that we need to vigalent in ensuring they don't get one and also it is irresponsible to assume that they don't have one simply because they haven't used it YET. Tomorrow could be another 9/11. Clinton made that very mistake time and again.

The best thing to do with terrorist scum is keep on enjoying your normal day to day life..sure be aware..but dont let them ruin your life with fear..when they do they have won. You cant really beat them either. Look at europeans who have dealt with terrorist attacks on their streets for years. They just clean up the mess and get on with it as best they can.
Click to expand...

You better believe we can beat them, AND WE WILL. Freedom and liberty depend on it. There is little more important that beating terrorism. It will come at a high cost, but we have no option but to fight it ON THEIR turf. I'd rather fight them on their turf on our terms than on our turf on their terms. It's irresponible and a quitter attitude to say we can't beat them; that's when you know they have won. Many terrorists have been beaten. The IRA for instance recently laid down their arms and surrended to the Brits. We have basically decapitated the Taliban and Al Q, and just yesterday killed their number 2 man. We've routed their army, captured and destroyed their supplies, and their leader is either dead or crippled and in hiding and their forces are almost completely ineffective... all this thanks to our current leadership and the brave soldiers who carry out orders.
 
I think I have your angle now though...are you a student? You seem to like to debate and argue like one in alot of your threads ive read, where situations are painted by you in aboslutes and are either black and or white...Perhaps when you get out in the real world youll see things differently, have you travelled much? If this sort of inoffensive comment makes you mad then you gotta ask yourself whether im right or its just your own insecurity, that drives you to never be wrong.
Click to expand...

Good Lord, Leadcounsel eats you up and this is all you've got? Dig real deep in your cereal box, maybe you'll find some grammar.
 
lol so much Clinton bashing. At least Clinton could find Iraq on the map. Btw if what you have now is so great, why is it he has cut various disability benefits to veterans?

You are not fighting a static enemy in uniform. The likehood that you will beat them anytime soon is slim to none.

BTW any of these nukes arguable will come from Russia. Why is it that Bush has repeatedly not made it a concern to help the Russians with safe storage and provide them with resources to help guard their arsenals? The Russians are incapable of doing it themselves or dont have the money. Could it be that in the long run war is profitable and for the ultra rich big business war is desirable as well?

If Bush was bombing Afghanistan to bits and you had 130K troops in Kabul I dont think the rest of the world would be shaking it head and wondering what you were doing in Iraq

Perhaps my stupid analogy will sum it up.

Bob attacks Doug
Doug now punches out Steve

but what about Bob?

Polls on popularity by an all volunteer army dont mean much.
 
Lead,

It's useless to even go on with this "debate". I noticed that one, 459, is using the terms like "your" as in "your government" and "your country". I'm gathering that this person "ain't from around these here parts".

As for Rob P, I just finished reading my Constitution and my Bill of Rights and I'll be damned if I can find the rights that he's speaking of, the only one that I have found is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, of which he says that we're being short sighted in trying to protect.

I also noticed that he failed to mention the first attack on The Towers which happened under clintons watch.

And, as for his "they were military so they were okay targets", well, we weren't at war at the time, so therefore I don't know how he could say that? Unless he would lead us to believe that if we hadn't declared war and just "struck" the Iraqi army/forces and then taken Saddam out that way, then that would have been okay but since we declared war, then it's wrong.

Have I got that right or :confused: .

As for clinton being the one that brought in the economy, he was riding the shirt tails of Bush I on that one. Here's something that the folks at the DU don't like us to know, when clinton was pres., the lowest unemployment rate during the entire 8 years was 5.4%. Under Bush II, it has been down to 5.3%, yet the libs and dems still told the American People that we were doing worse then under clinton.

Who's right and who's wrong?

And Rob P. also says that we need to look at the big picture. I've seen more of that picture then he has and I posted on it, yet, he hasn't answered. The same was asked of Josh, yet nothing.

As for Bush "killing" our soldiers, it's already been pointed out that we are a voluntary force. And we aren't made up of "poor" people but people from every aspect of life.

As I've said, I don't drink the kool-aid from either side of that fence but I will speak up when people attack others and have no clue about what they are attacking, just getting their news bites from the media (tv/news papers) and not bothering to really research the facts (using creditable sources).

Just to give you a head's up to what I am talking about. One of the examples of why Bush is bad was the No Child Left Behind Act.

You DO realize don't you that this bill was the brain child of Teddy Kennedy right? That Bush, having not the guts that he should have, signed it to try to bridge the gap between the aisle. Didn't work, it was a bad bill, and you blame Bush, when it was Kennedy's Bill.

Wayne
 
USP wayne. You got me Im a foreigner.

My favourite drink is Jim Beam and always has been.

Im not anti american at all, I just dont agree with your government. I dont agree with any of Bushs policies. From Iraq to soft wood lumber.

I sincerely hope your military leaves Iraq and doesnt leave anybody behind. I have several friends in Kandahar and in services and I am not anti military. I am anti politicians who lie to their people and hide their greed under the guise of patriotism. Volunteer force aside its not cool that you guys are getting killed over there for oil. Maybe your all just fighting for your own friends over there and not the politicians I dunno. Im here so I really cant say for sure and its not my place to judge them and I wont. But your government is way out of line in so much that it does recently. I cant believe most Americans sit there and let Bush and his buddies slowly erode your constitutional rights and freedoms.

:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top