Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Republicans are the lesser of two evils.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
are gun owners blinded by the right?
- Thread starter faustulus
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
I have often thought that if Algorebatross were President and had done these same things [Patriot Act, federalized luggage search, foot-dragging on arming pilots, swearing to re-up the AWB], I would have been "foot-stompin'" mad! Instead, I'm just "plain-old" mad.
Very interesting thread, faustulus.
Very interesting thread, faustulus.
edamon
Member
Vladimir Berkov
Going after Iraq was put in motion shortly after 9/11 if I recall.
The only period in which nothing "changed" was the 8 years prior to his office - when Clinton let the Iraq problem snow ball to the point inspectors were kicked out.
That wasn't an al qaeda associated terrorist camp in northern Iraq?
Not to mention, how do you know what deals have or have not happened? I guess you've got some top clearances at the CIA to be privy to what intel we have.
Everything we are having to deal with now is a result of Clintons lack of foreign policy.
Iraq - completely clinton. We won that war and it's our responsibility to enfore the sanctions of the "cease-fire" - the only reason that war ended. clinton didn't do a thing in this regard - less toss a handful of tomahawk missiles after the UN got kicked out of the country.
DPRK - $6B in cash and 500,000 tons of oil a year is what slick willy handed Kim Jong - yet he never bothered to follow up with inspections to insure that the NK was holding up to it's end of the bargin. The reason Kim Jong is hoppin mad now is that Bush cut off that aid completely, like clinton should have.
Al Qaeda - WTC bombing, 2 US embassy bombings, army barracks in saudi arabia bombing and the USS Cole.. all over the span of Clintons terms. Not a thing was done. Even when Sudan offered Osama on a platter in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions he ignored the offer. That was a pressure cooker in the making.. and turned out to be 9/11.
Then there is the Chinese and our nuclear intellectual capital, another clinton fiasco but we can save that for another thread.
Bush has done more good for this country then slick willy ever even considered doing.
Bush does the right thing. Popular or unpopular.
Clinton did the right thing... as along as it was in HIS best interest.
-d
Actually, it did. There was absolutely no change in the Iraqi situation in the period when Bush wasn't pushing for war, and when he was pushing for war. Pretty much, Bush got the ball rolling on this one almost entirely.
Going after Iraq was put in motion shortly after 9/11 if I recall.
The only period in which nothing "changed" was the 8 years prior to his office - when Clinton let the Iraq problem snow ball to the point inspectors were kicked out.
It was by definition a stretch, because there was no evidence of such deals ever occuring in the past, nor was there any indication Saddam was planning such deals in the future. In short, all we could do was speculate that Saddam MIGHT do such a thing in the future, and the terrorist groups MIGHT use them against America.
That wasn't an al qaeda associated terrorist camp in northern Iraq?
Not to mention, how do you know what deals have or have not happened? I guess you've got some top clearances at the CIA to be privy to what intel we have.
Everything we are having to deal with now is a result of Clintons lack of foreign policy.
Iraq - completely clinton. We won that war and it's our responsibility to enfore the sanctions of the "cease-fire" - the only reason that war ended. clinton didn't do a thing in this regard - less toss a handful of tomahawk missiles after the UN got kicked out of the country.
DPRK - $6B in cash and 500,000 tons of oil a year is what slick willy handed Kim Jong - yet he never bothered to follow up with inspections to insure that the NK was holding up to it's end of the bargin. The reason Kim Jong is hoppin mad now is that Bush cut off that aid completely, like clinton should have.
Al Qaeda - WTC bombing, 2 US embassy bombings, army barracks in saudi arabia bombing and the USS Cole.. all over the span of Clintons terms. Not a thing was done. Even when Sudan offered Osama on a platter in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions he ignored the offer. That was a pressure cooker in the making.. and turned out to be 9/11.
Then there is the Chinese and our nuclear intellectual capital, another clinton fiasco but we can save that for another thread.
Bush has done more good for this country then slick willy ever even considered doing.
Bush does the right thing. Popular or unpopular.
Clinton did the right thing... as along as it was in HIS best interest.
-d
IIRC,
most Repubs SUPPORTED Clinton on the Balkans business.
You're right, most folks here can spot leftist cant a mile away. So?
As for people getting shouted down: what I see is a (for the most part, and exceptions belong to both left and right) reasonable discussion here. Those who leave may be the ones who can't take being contradicted. Too bad....that's the Leftist way, though. See Sarandon, Robbins et. al., who cry McCarthy whenever us peons refuse to shut up and get in line to buy their CDs and see their movies although they insult us.
Sorry, Vladimir, Faustulus- can't buy your premise. It neglects one key possibility: that the conservatives here at TFL might have thought things through and arrived at their opinions. Seems the left always thinks it has a lock on thinking.
BTW, Ruby Ride and Waco WERE heinous abuses, a conclusion supported by info after they happened. What's paranoid about recognizing that?
most Repubs SUPPORTED Clinton on the Balkans business.
You're right, most folks here can spot leftist cant a mile away. So?
As for people getting shouted down: what I see is a (for the most part, and exceptions belong to both left and right) reasonable discussion here. Those who leave may be the ones who can't take being contradicted. Too bad....that's the Leftist way, though. See Sarandon, Robbins et. al., who cry McCarthy whenever us peons refuse to shut up and get in line to buy their CDs and see their movies although they insult us.
Sorry, Vladimir, Faustulus- can't buy your premise. It neglects one key possibility: that the conservatives here at TFL might have thought things through and arrived at their opinions. Seems the left always thinks it has a lock on thinking.
BTW, Ruby Ride and Waco WERE heinous abuses, a conclusion supported by info after they happened. What's paranoid about recognizing that?
JohnBT
Member
"I think we should have taken Saddam out of power the first time around and not waited years and years and years." - me
"Under the provisions set by the UN for Desert Storm, Bush I would have had big problems had he gone into Baghdad. None of the arab countries supported it except maybe Kuwaitt and many of the other world governments were not for it either. I know, Bush II didn't have as much world support and none by the UN and went anyway, but Bush I didn't have a Republican controlled congress. Had Bush I decided to take Iraq anyway he may have had all funding withdrawn by congress and I think impeachment would have been a possiblity also. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it was a different set of circumstances and conditions at that time." - you
And all of this means what? We should have taken him out - damn the torpedoes and all that - nobody ever said life was about taking the easy way out.
Thought we should have gone after Saddam back then and think that now. Just my opinion, not an analysis of circumstances with consideration of the political balance of the world.
You can mumble U.N. and sanctions and world opinion until you're blue in the face, but I still believe the world would have been a better place without him all these years. Ask the Iraqis and Kurds, for starters.
John
"Under the provisions set by the UN for Desert Storm, Bush I would have had big problems had he gone into Baghdad. None of the arab countries supported it except maybe Kuwaitt and many of the other world governments were not for it either. I know, Bush II didn't have as much world support and none by the UN and went anyway, but Bush I didn't have a Republican controlled congress. Had Bush I decided to take Iraq anyway he may have had all funding withdrawn by congress and I think impeachment would have been a possiblity also. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it was a different set of circumstances and conditions at that time." - you
And all of this means what? We should have taken him out - damn the torpedoes and all that - nobody ever said life was about taking the easy way out.
Thought we should have gone after Saddam back then and think that now. Just my opinion, not an analysis of circumstances with consideration of the political balance of the world.
You can mumble U.N. and sanctions and world opinion until you're blue in the face, but I still believe the world would have been a better place without him all these years. Ask the Iraqis and Kurds, for starters.
John
faustulus
Member
Sorry, Vladimir, Faustulus- can't buy your premise. It neglects one key possibility: that the conservatives here at TFL might have thought things through and arrived at their opinions. Seems the left always thinks it has a lock on thinking.
I don't really have a premise just a question or two. However, if we agree with the need for homeland sec. and fed. screeners doesn't that mean we are contricting our doctrine of smaller government, at least in this instance and if this instance more is needed could there also not be other places we were wrong? We were saying we needed less government, now we are saying we need more, at least in this instance. It seems we should rethink our position if this is the case.
Faustulus,
you are correct about homeland security, and I too worry about its implications, especially the increase in the size and reach of government. I don't have the answer. Our history has ever been one of tension between government and freedom; in fact that sums up America neatly.
If we are attacked, e.g. Pearl Harbor, our response is, appropriately in my opinion, to gird for war. But building up our army is a massive increase in government, no? Yet nat'l defense is clearly a proper role of government, and a case can be made that Home Sec is also. I think reasonable people can disagree about particulars of Home Sec, but not on whether it is proper to government in a Republic.
On the other hand, the Dept. of Education, NEA, and like organizations clearly fall outside the constitutional purview of government, and their work constitutes an unlawful intrusion on our rights. Such agencies are rightly opposed by the Right.
It is no more inconsistent to oppose NEA while supporting Home Sec than it is to decry Ruby Ridge/Waco while supporthing RKBA.
you are correct about homeland security, and I too worry about its implications, especially the increase in the size and reach of government. I don't have the answer. Our history has ever been one of tension between government and freedom; in fact that sums up America neatly.
If we are attacked, e.g. Pearl Harbor, our response is, appropriately in my opinion, to gird for war. But building up our army is a massive increase in government, no? Yet nat'l defense is clearly a proper role of government, and a case can be made that Home Sec is also. I think reasonable people can disagree about particulars of Home Sec, but not on whether it is proper to government in a Republic.
On the other hand, the Dept. of Education, NEA, and like organizations clearly fall outside the constitutional purview of government, and their work constitutes an unlawful intrusion on our rights. Such agencies are rightly opposed by the Right.
It is no more inconsistent to oppose NEA while supporting Home Sec than it is to decry Ruby Ridge/Waco while supporthing RKBA.
I see this same idea expressed in a lot of different ways,,,ie: Why now/Why did Bush push for war so hard at the time he did....why did he wait,,,etc, etc,Actually, it did. There was absolutely no change in the Iraqi situation in the period when Bush wasn't pushing for war, and when he was pushing for war. Pretty much, Bush got the ball rolling on this one almost entirely
Have you considered the possibility that the US COULDN'T mount a conventional war until now? Please bear in mind, that the Clinton administration gutted the defense budget, then Clinton darned near ran the supply of "smart bombs" dry during Kosovo and then later in 1998. Then, to add insult to injury, he used a big chunk of the defense budget for "world travels". Some estimates had our supply of "smart bombs" under 100 in early 1999. One of the early threads over at TFL dealt with how Clinton had decimated an already depleted military. I remember scanning the web for actual numbers of "smart weapons" the US had in inventory at the time. It wasn't any secret that the US supplys were dangerously low. 100 may have been an exacerated number at the time, I'll admit,,,the most realisitc number that pops up is around 2000. But even 2000,,,considering that the US used 15,000 "smart weapons", in the first 3 days of the Iraq war,,,,puts into perspective of just how bad off we were. The lead time to produce many of the "smart weapons" is 2 to 2 1/2 years in case you wondered. Even if Bush had wanted to go into Iraq the day after he was sworn in, I doubt if we had the resources to pull it off until now.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 1K