Quote:
Hmmm... Sounds to me like you're just establishing a pattern of the Dems getting us into a mess and the Reps getting us out of that mess. Pattern just keeps on going on I guess...
WW2 was a mess? I guess you're right, considering your sensibilities lean far more towards the Axis powers than with the Allies in that conflict. I mean, I'm not implying you're a fasicst, but clearly you'd prefer an expantionist strong military leader than quasi socialist egalitarians.
Quote:
Let's see. WW2. Ok. We needed to get into that. Um... Which party dragged their feet and waited until we got smacked in the butt before finally taking action? Which party tried to stay "out of it", until it was almost too late? Yup. Your precious Democrats. Wait, this pattern will be repeated...
BASED ON WHAT, EXACTLY? Did the monkies that flew out of your *** during your mescaline trip tell you that was true? The Republican party was dominated by
ISOLATIONISTS during WW2. The Democrats had to drag the Repulicans kicking and screaming into the war and without Pearl Harbor they probably wouldn't have been able to do so. Lend/Lease ring a bell?
IF YOU'RE GOING TO REFERANCE HISTORY TAKE THE TEN SECONDS REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THE SITUATION WAS AT THE TIME YOU'RE REFRENCING Moron.
Quote:
Korea? Ok. That one was a mess from the get go, and the decision to go or not go wasn't really an issue. However, which party leadership grossly underestimated the enemy forces and resolve? Which party basically sent in forces piecemeal and let them get ground up for the first year of the conflict because they were unwilling to actually be decisive on the ground? Yup. Once again, the Democrats...
Which party gave up and allowed the United States to fail to achieve an attainable victory for the first time in it's history?
The Republicans.
Quote:
Vietnam? Are you actually claiming this as a good thing that the Dems got us into a fight that we had no business partaking in?
Hang on just a minute. We had no buisness in Vietnam? If you believe that to be true, please explain the diffrences in regards to Iraq.
Thanks.
Quote:
In this case, we had no UN mandate to be there at all. We were just causing trouble. Which party ignored the will of the people in Vietnam? Which party basically propped up a puppet in opposition to the popular leader there? Which party, when the UN decision was to allow for voting to determine who should lead chose to have their guy refuse elections because they knew their guy couldn't win? Which party adopted the "dominoe theory" as their justification for getting us into that war? Yup. One again, the moronic Democrats. And once again, they tip toed their way into the conflict, with no cohesive plan of attack, and no clear long term objective in mind. Just toss troops into the meat grinder and hope it'll all work out in the end. Yup. Brilliant. And which party finally had the guts to say that this was moronic? Again, the Republicans.
Of course. Republicans allways run when the poll numbers turn. They're not intrested in fighting the good fight, just in political expedience. Typical Republican
Cowardice.
Quote:
Bosnia? You're talking about the administration that once again refused to send in ground forces in favor of just dropping bombs from a safe distance? Which party could have defused the situation in a few months with the right UN assistance and the right amount of ground forces, but once again tip toed along trying vainly to fight a war without actually fighting it?
How'd that war turn out, by the way? Oh yes, that's right, the dictators were removed from power, are being tried for war crimes all without hundreds of US troops dying and thosands being maimed.
What a horrible model. Much better to send hundreds to die and thousands to be crippled for life to accomplish something less effective.
Quote:
That's the pattern I see. Dems who toe the line around using actual force, but then when it's time to do so, step so gingerly into battle that they get soldiers killed for no real reason.
Yeah, gingerly. Dropping Atomic Bombs was acting very gingerly. Johnson's alocation of troops in Vietnam was acting very gingerly. I think what you're trying to say is sending troops
without utter disregard to the lives of american soldiers Quote:
Look. I know the body count is growing in Iraq. However, we actually like toppled a regime there.
To what effect is the question. We toppled a brutal dictator who no will argue, was an insane murderous lunatic. Not that things like that ussualy stop us from supporting a leader, but that's another issue. The thing is he was the leader of a
Secular muslim state. There is at the very least a 50/50 chance that the government of Iraq will end up being a
fundementalist islamic religous puppet of Syria and Iran. If that happens, are we really better off?
Quote:
As opposed to Vietnam
Republicans turned tail and ran like the cowards they allways are.
Republicans turned tail and ran like the cowards they allways are.
Quote:
and Somalia, where we more or less did nothing.
I'm amazed we're even talking about Somalia. If you're going to bring Somalia up as a failure you might as well bring Grenada up as a ringing success.
Quote:
Low body count doesn't mean much if you aren't actually accomplishing anything.
Does high body count mean much if you aren't actually accomplishing anything? Because I haven't seen us accomplishing much yet in Iraq.
Quote:
I'd rather 1000 US soldiers die doing something of value, then 10 soldiers die doing nothing other then pissing people off around the globe. I'm betting most US military personel would agree with that as well.
You know, I don't think they would. I think most US military personel would tell you that they'd prefer that no US soldiers die doing anything that isn't
absolutely nessicary and couldn't possibly be resolved by other means.
[quote]
As to 9/11. Hmmm... The number of increasingly violent attacks by Al-queda in the Clinton years should have been a hint something was coming.
[/quote]
And...what exactly? What would have been the action that adminstration should have taken in your tiny little mind?
[quote]
The fact that it occured 9 months after Clinton left is not the issue.
[/quote]
The hell it isn't. If it had hapened during a Gore presidency can you seriously, with a straight face tell me your perople wouldn't be
actively blaming the man for it? Of course they would. Just as they try to hang it on Clinton which is beyond ludicrous.
[quote]
Clearly, it was planned earlier then that. Bush being in office was irrelevant. Clinton's administration was so afraid to take any decisive action against Al-queda for fear of losing ground on his Isreal/palesinian peace deal that he ignored a threat that killled 3 thousand US civilians. That's the real story.
[/quote]
Thank God Bush took decisive action against them when he got into office then. Oh wait. That's right, he didn't. He ignored a threat that killed 3 thousand US civilians.
THAT'S THE REAL STORY.
[quote]
What I see is a pattern of the Dems being handed something that is working, ******** it all to hell, then tossing it like a hot potato to the Reps screaming: "Fix it! Fix it...". If they had a clue how to handle foreign affairs, we likely wouldn't have had a 9/11 at all.
[/quote]
Right. If they had just trained terrorists how to use weapons, improvise munitions, organise, launder money, and pilot planes
like the Republicans did there wouldn't have been a problem. The reality is Republicans are and allways have been a bunch of armchair Generals who love the idea of war but wet their pants when one actually occurs.
[quote]
Same with the economy. You would be hard pressed to find any economist who will say that we were not heading into a severe recession when Bush took office. Not "after he took office".
[/quote]
Really? Amazing. I find it rather startling that the
VAST MAJORITY of econmists (including several Nobel Prize winners) say the exact opposite. In point of fact, pretty much only economists in the employ of the Administration or the Republican party even attempt to make the case that he inherited one.
[quote]
When he took office. That means if you're going to place blame on a president and his administration (which is questionable when talking about the economy anyway), you have to place that blame squarely on Bill Clinton's head. He took an economy that was running like a well oiled machine and just let it run until it crashed.
[/quote]
Yeah it was doing so well at the end of Bush Sr.'s term that there was massive debt to the point where he was forced to
raise taxes fearing a collapse of the federal monetary system and Republican's in Congress
shut the government down because there wasn't enough revenue in the economy to pay government workers. Well oiled machine. Right.
[quote]
His administration missed all the signs that we were heading towards a crash. They made no attempt to slow down the dot com boom. Instead, his administration just took advantage of a record growth (which they did *not* create), and increased taxes higher and higher. When the crash started, businesss did not have the leeway needed to ride it out, so they went bankrupt. 3 years of record high taxes meant that they were ok as long as the economy was booming, but at the first sign of downturn, they had no reserves to draw on.
[/quote]
Yeah, good logic. If only fiscially irresponsible companies who never once turned a proft had
MORE cash to spend on Super Bowl ads they would have been fine!
[quote]
And that's why record numbers of businesses went belly up in 2001 and 2002. It had nothing to do with Bush or his administration. It had everything to do with events that occured during Clinton's administration. The sooner people realize this somewhat obvious truth, the sooner folks will realise the current Dem rhetoric for what it is.
[/quote]
Haha somewhat obvious. In the way that's it obvious to muslim's that America must be destroyed I guess. It's amazing how many things become obvious when you maipulate the facts to fit your idealogical view isn't it?
Hell, why am I telling you that, you can't even begin to examine a fact with any sort of intelectual rigor. In point of fact you randomly
create falsehoods to fit your views. Like Republicans being in favor of the US going to war in WW2, when in reality they were as dead set against it as it was possible to be.
Don't you ever grow tired of being amazingly and so easily
proven wrong? Apparently not. I suspect you're a ********* of some sort.