Bush vs. ClintonFollow

Of course it does. Because Bush was not capable of meeting even the scholastic requirements.

"Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States. We will not forget that treachery, and we will accept nothing less than victory over the enemy."
-- Bush's speech to a graduating Air Force Academy class

Huh.. I wonder what Poland was up to on Sept 1, 1939 when millions of German troops attacked.

I guess we should blame Bush's speech writers and handlers for that one though. And, no, it does not mean "our involvement in WWII", the sentance references WWII as a whole. Given that it's a comparison, you should be able to eliminate the other object and still have an accurate statement:

"Our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States" -- True
"The Second World War began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States" -- False

Poor writing? Perhaps. But it's amusing that no one read that and thought "WTF?"

Edited, Thu Jun 3 12:14:58 2004 by Jophiel

FTFY'all.

Eb

Speaking of Elephants, this is starting to remind me of a story about 5 men and one

If I was making a speech that'd be transcribed and available globally, I'd probably want it to be historically accurate.

Just sayin'.

That's true. All things actually begin when they begin to affect the U.S.

Eb

Edited, Thu Jun 3 14:37:49 2004 by pickleprince

yes it is, but i don't think we really became commited to the cause until PH. and come on now no party really jumps off 'til the U.S. pop's it's youthfully ignorant little head in the door

i know, i am a soldier. but c'mon ppl die at pt's all the time( FFXI, Compton, Bronx, etc.) and i am right, no recent(last 250 years) war gets a really large # of casualties until we arive, mainly because we used to use the "there's power in #'s theory" instead of cherishing every human life, which we do now thx to new ideas and societal changes.

oh and yanari please stop using large words some of the less intellingent ppl(including me) may not know what they mean

Edited, Thu Jun 3 14:20:28 2004 by javelinsjavelin

true bout the red's, but most of the deaths that they incurred were after we entered

im just sayin the majority of the deaths happened after december 7, 1941(after we entered the war)....check the facts i'm right the russians major offensive(leading to the majority of thier casualties) didn't happen 'til way after we entered the war.

and making fun of me may make u feel better but sure as hell does not prove ur point, in fact it reflects much more on u than me

My favorite when gbaji is getting drummed in an argument he tries to revert back to everyman speak, or when he makes statements like what did Clinton do? What did Bush do? and gets drummed on them he focuses on a minor point that is brought up like who is smarter, like this really matters, smart or not what matters is what they did or didnt do.

I would say a better analogy would be that Clinton handed Bush an Indy Car in working order. High maintence, but able to rock and roll when handled properly. Sure sometimes Clinton crashed the car or someone made him crash by not controlling their car but he quickly got his crew on the car and rebuilt it repaired it and got it out on the track for the next race. Bush on the other hand took the Indy Car and parked it in the projects in NYC for 9 months, then when he came back to the car and found it stripped proceded to attack the people in Manhattan not because they had anything to do with it but they were wealthier, easier to attack, and Trump lives there and he was easy to potray as a bad guy. Sadly in taking all the effort and money to lead his attack on Manhattan he has forgotten that his job is really to race Indy cars and his Indy car that Clinton left him is still sitting on blocks in the projects.

yes i did say post U.S. involvement but did NOT say that all were U.S. casualties...can u really read or r u still on hooked on phonics?

Revolutionary war-duh! we were there the whole time
war of 1812-we were here the whole time
american civil war- we were here the whole time
spanish-american war- we were here the whole time
indian wars- we were here the whole time
WW1-the majority of the casualties happened just after the sinking of the lucitania(a few months later we started sending troops)
WW2-the majority of the casualties happened after we started sending TROOPS
korean war- we were there almost the whole time
vietnam war- we were there almost the whole time
granada- we were there the whole time
iran-iraq war-we not only supplied the iraqis but trained them as well(prolly killed a few iranians too)
panama invasion- we were there the whole time
soviet occupation of afghanistan- same as iran-iraq war
persian gulf war-we were there the whole time
now- we started it


hhhhmmm, i think that covers all but a few major conflicts that have happened in the last 250 yrs(aside from the french-indian wars, which was sort of us, but before the U.S. was formed)
so once again i'm right

Edited, Thu Jun 3 16:22:15 2004 by javelinsjavelin

Edited, Thu Jun 3 16:29:23 2004 by javelinsjavelin

You Hi-jackers. If Bush were here he'd call you "evil-doers" and send the marines.

I brought up WWI because it was an easy way to discredit your moronic statement. Not to mention it was one of the largest conflicts in the history of the planet, so it not fitting your statement says a lot.

The other part was that the second half of your statement attributes those deaths to US battle theory (regardless of which side substains casualties) which is innacurate. US battle theory had nothing to do with the bulk of the deaths in WWII -- they were able to attack each other en masse without any advice from us.

If the US never entered WWII, Germany and Russia would have still slaughtered one another by the millions in Eastern Europe. Millions of Chinese would have been over run by Japan. We had exactly zilch to do with it.