US politics circa 2011

However, I do need to reiterate that if Clinton had taken care of business, there would have been no Afghanistan and probably no Iraq. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That I don't necessarily agree with; Iraq was not necessary at all; GWB wanted to do Daddy Bush one better.

“In the 1990s, out of an abundance of caution, the Clinton administration failed to act effectively against Osama bin Laden and the growing danger of al Qaeda. The CIA and the military’s Special Operations forces offered proposals for capturing or killing bin Laden and his senior lieutenants, but the risk-averse White House rejected them.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...WORDS=Max+Boot When Bush was sworn in 2001, bin Laden’s operatives were already in the U.S., and 9/11 came just a short eight months after Clinton left office.


Originally Posted by I B Hankering

OK playing the blame game?....how about a bunch of stupid ass-hole trying to impeach Clinton stepping up to the plate and for putting their parties interest before the countries. Why do you think Clinton had a abundance of caution?

What about Ronnie Reagan hauling ass after the Marine barracks attack thus empowering our enemies to terrorize us out of their countries.

This is really a stupid exercise but I can play along if ya like.

WTF our we doing having troops in every God Damn country? Why do we spend as much as the entire world combined on military BS?

I guess it depends on how you define violence. For instance, all the aborted children might tend to differ with your posit. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

That is why the folks that actually try and kill doctors at least seem to believe that the doctors are truely killing babies. I know that I would have no problem getting rid of a doctor that I believed is mass murdering babies.

I find it strange that folks actually believe that and do nothing but protest for aborted children

OK playing the blame game?....how about a bunch of stupid ass-hole trying to impeach Clinton stepping up to the plate and for putting their parties interest before the countries. Why do you think Clinton had a abundance of caution? Originally Posted by WTF

There was no wind blowing that day, so the straw poll didn’t work properly? (see below) BTW, that quote is from the Wall Street Journal. Max Boot is the author.

What about Ronnie Reagan hauling ass after the Marine barracks attack thus empowering our enemies to terrorize us out of their countries. Originally Posted by WTF

I think he chose to stand off and bomb the hell out of Libya, and it worked—ask Kadafi.

What did Clinton do after the U.S. embassies were bombed in the cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya? What action did he take after the U.S.S. Cole was attacked? And what did he do in Somalia? And after?

“The Battle of Mogadishu led to a shift in American foreign policy. The Clinton administration became increasingly reluctant to use military intervention in Third World conflicts peripherally related to the national interest or national defense of the United States, such as the Rwandan Genocide, the mass murder of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus by Hutu militia groups in Rwanda in 1994.

“President Clinton also refused to mobilize U.S. ground troops in fighting the Bosnian Serb Army in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 and the Yugoslav Army in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (specifically, the province of Kosovo) during Operation Allied Force in 1999 in favour of only using air power.”
http://www.dogpile.com/dogpile/ws/results/Web/somalia%20black%20hawk%20down/1/417/TopNavigation/Relevance/iq=true/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true

This is really a stupid exercise but I can play along if ya like. Originally Posted by WTF

I’ll answer this one time.

WTF our we doing having troops in every God Damn country? Originally Posted by WTF

A forward projected U.S. presence provides some reassurance to our allies and forestalls enemy strikes against domestic targets. Pearl Harbor taught us to keep our vigilance at a distance. BTW I don’t think we have any troops cantoned in Venezuela.

Why do we spend as much as the entire world combined on military BS? Originally Posted by WTF

Because we can, and even FDR realized the U.S. cannot exist in isolation—another lesson learned at Pearl Harbor.

Military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (2009).
1. - N/A North Korea
2. - 8.5% Georgia
3. - 8.2% Saudi Arabia
4. - 7.7% Oman
5. - 7.0% Israel
6. - 6.6% Chad
7. - 5.9% United Arab Emirates
8. - 5.9% Jordan
9. - 5.4% Iraq
10. - 4.4% Sudan
11. - 4.3% United States

There was no wind blowing that day, so the straw poll didn’t work properly? (see below) BTW, that quote is from the Wall Street Journal. Max Boot is the author. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

To paraphrase PJ, now there is an unbiased publication

As far as Bosnia goes, air power was all that was needed; why send in troops if you don't have to?

There was no wind blowing that day, so the straw poll didn’t work properly? (see below) BTW, that quote is from the Wall Street Journal. Max Boot is the author.


I think he chose to stand off and bomb the hell out of Libya, and it worked—ask Kadafi.

What did Clinton do after the U.S. embassies were bombed in the cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya? What action did he take after the U.S.S. Cole was attacked? And what did he do in
Military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (2009).
1. - N/A North Korea
2. - 8.5% Georgia
3. - 8.2% Saudi Arabia
4. - 7.7% Oman
5. - 7.0% Israel
6. - 6.6% Chad
7. - 5.9% United Arab Emirates
8. - 5.9% Jordan
9. - 5.4% Iraq
10. - 4.4% Sudan
11. - 4.3% United States Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Those figures aren't helpful in the absence of context. I eat a lot better than the family across town but they spend a much higher % of their income on food than I do.

I guess it depends on how you define violence. For instance, all the aborted children might tend to differ with your posit. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Are you then approving of vigilante behavior? That is a slippery slope that can't lead to anything good.

As far as Bosnia goes, air power was all that was needed; why send in troops if you don't have to? Originally Posted by discreetgent

“Blame it all on BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment), the problem is that air forces in general, and the U.S. Air Force in particular, just cannot get a handle on it. BDA is the business of figuring out what to bomb, and what the impact on the enemy is after you bomb. The problem, of the guys in the air getting fooled by the guys on the ground, began during World War II. This was when air forces used large scale aerial bombing for the first time. Right after that conflict, the U.S. did a thorough survey of the impact of strategic bombing on Germany and Japan. It was discovered that the impact was far different from what BDA during the war had indicated.

“The Air Force vowed to do better next time. But as experience in Korea (1950-3), Vietnam (1965-72), Kuwait (1991) and Kosovo (1999), Iraq (2003) and Lebanon (the Israeli Air Force in 2006) demonstrated, the enemy on the ground continued to have an edge when it came to deceiving the most energetic BDA efforts. The only proven technique for beating the BDA problem was to have people on the ground, up close, checking up on targets, while the fighting was going on.”

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20110109.aspx

Those figures aren't helpful in the absence of context. I eat a lot better than the family across town but they spend a much higher % of their income on food than I do. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

That's exactly my point.

OK playing the blame game?....how about a bunch of stupid ass-hole trying to impeach Clinton stepping up to the plate and for putting their parties interest before the countries. Why do you think Clinton had a abundance of caution?

What about Ronnie Reagan hauling ass after the Marine barracks attack thus empowering our enemies to terrorize us out of their countries.

This is really a stupid exercise but I can play along if ya like.

WTF our we doing having troops in every God Damn country? Why do we spend as much as the entire world combined on military BS?
Originally Posted by WTF

We have been down this road countless times in the past. Apparently it has not sunk in. Each and every one of the failures that occurred during the George W. Bush Administration are Bill Clinton's fault. By the same token, Bill Clinton does not deserve any credit for the many successes that occurred during his 8 years in office. Ronald Reagan gets all of the credit.

It is apparent that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!

To paraphrase PJ, now there is an unbiased publication Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yup, the news is biased liberal and the editorial pages are biased conservative. Kind of balanced actually.

Are you then approving of vigilante behavior? That is a slippery slope that can't lead to anything good. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Ahh DG. Now you're trying to flip your posit to some other context...in WTF fashion. My answer would be NO I am not approving viginlante behavior. But it was you sir who started down the slippery slope. Don't start looking at me because you fell on your ass.

You said, the right wing was the starter of more terrorist acts...and gave an example or two of such. I simple showed that it depended on one's perspective as to a terrorist act.

Nice try though.

We have been down this road countless times in the past. Apparently it has not sunk in. Each and every one of the failures that occurred during the George W. Bush Administration are Bill Clinton's fault. By the same token, Bill Clinton does not deserve any credit for the many successes that occurred during his 8 years in office. Ronald Reagan gets all of the credit.

It is apparent that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! Originally Posted by bigtex

Oh look. Bigtex has seen the light.

Oh look. Bigtex has seen the light. Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1

That is why the folks that actually try and kill doctors at least seem to believe that the doctors are truely killing babies. I know that I would have no problem getting rid of a doctor that I believed is mass murdering babies.

I find it strange that folks actually believe that and do nothing but protest for aborted children Originally Posted by WTF

Well, we can't all have your keen sense of right and wrong.

I see a lot of rapists that seem to not be "gotten rid" of, and I hold significant disdain for them. My feelings are much the same when applied to folks who do things to kids. Most folks seem to try to work within the law to get things changed.

Since it appears you have the mores to where you would "have no problem getting rid of" such wrongdoers...Why don't you get rid of the rapists and kid wrongdoers? Or could it be that you don't feel they are doing wrong? Or maybe that was just another WTF BS post.

C'mon buddy...follow the linier bouncing ball.