Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Bill Clinton interview on Fox
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 122831" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I would also blame Bush more than Clinton but it's more because how the cards have played out. History I think will continue to tell more and more of this story and my opinion may change or modify but for now I think Bush has failed more on his watch than Clinton only because we pulled the trigger and have yet come up short in getting the "Big Dog". I will give credit that in many respects we've dealt Al Queda several blows but the question still begs how they've adapted and modified their operations. I'm not sure how important to Al Queda specifically Osama is other than a figurehead and rally point but having him loose keeps the neckhairs and ears up of the American people whereas his capture or death would in most minds suggest a completion and therefore a conclusion to the war on terror when reality might suggest just the opposite. </p><p> </p><p>As for Iraq, initially I supported it but not all for the general reasoning most given. First off, there was a chance that Iraq had an infrastructure for production and storage of NBC weapons and you could argue after 9/11 we didn't have the luxury of taking risks anymore. Spin it all you want but this proved to be false for whatever reason you or them want to give. I also knew that prior to the global alliance lead by the US to expell Iraq from Kuwait(Gulf War 1), that Osama and Al Queda had requested of Saudi royals to be allowed to do the job themselves (so much for the Saddam/Osama beer drinking and ballgame friendship although they are both Sunni) and that Osama felt very angry over being rebuffed by the Royals and the Infidels being allowed in on their "Holy Ground." After the 1st Gulf War we remained there in Saudi to maintain the no/fly zone which further displeased Osama and the radical Wahhabi's and it was this event threshold that began the Al Queda attacks on the west and specifically the US. A removal of Saddam, thus a removal of US forces and or presence on Saudi ground could likely qwell Osama and Al Queda and they devote their time and energy towards other elements. Plus the fact that we were expending large sums of tax dollars on acting as Saddam's jailer and maintaining his "house arrest" in effect andfor how long do we do this? </p><p> </p><p>In hindsight, the parties who found Saddam should have turned off the cameras, capped Saddam in the head, threw him back in that spider hole and walked away as if nothing happened. In the days to come, leak the info of his location to trusted Iraqi persons so that they find the body and the Iraqi people can know he has gone to be with his 70 virgins. Then we pack our bags and get out and wish them well. Would their be chaos? Likely but it's also likely it could spill over into Iran's doorstep and handcuff them and don't forget Syria on the other side. In other words, let them take each other out if they so choose to do so. Devilish, sneeky, evil bastard ain't I. But at least my way get's us out of the region, no nation building or empirical desires, have them so busy fighting each other which is what they've done for forever anyway and if someone does rise to the top they'll be so beat up and torn to pieces that they will have a Blue light, midnight madness sale of their oil just to get enough money to buy the basics. In other words, peace through economics which is usually in the end what drives it anyway. We just haven't evolved to see how stupid war is so until that day comes you just have to go with the flow and economics tends to be a deciding factor!</p><p> </p><p>That's my take for what it's worth and not much I'm sure!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/lol.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Lol :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> </p><p> </p><p>Hey BTW Jones, speaking of polls, over the last few weeks the republicans have seen some positive rebounds and the lastest Clinton/Fox deal appears to also have helped thus fueling the "vast rightwing/Fox News Conspiracy." The American public is so herded and driven by events that 2 weeks before the election Bush could fart in public and if the media spun it right for opinion effect, every republican in office would get voted out as a result of the smell. The same is true the other way. We are truly sheep lead to the slaughter!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 122831, member: 2189"] I would also blame Bush more than Clinton but it's more because how the cards have played out. History I think will continue to tell more and more of this story and my opinion may change or modify but for now I think Bush has failed more on his watch than Clinton only because we pulled the trigger and have yet come up short in getting the "Big Dog". I will give credit that in many respects we've dealt Al Queda several blows but the question still begs how they've adapted and modified their operations. I'm not sure how important to Al Queda specifically Osama is other than a figurehead and rally point but having him loose keeps the neckhairs and ears up of the American people whereas his capture or death would in most minds suggest a completion and therefore a conclusion to the war on terror when reality might suggest just the opposite. As for Iraq, initially I supported it but not all for the general reasoning most given. First off, there was a chance that Iraq had an infrastructure for production and storage of NBC weapons and you could argue after 9/11 we didn't have the luxury of taking risks anymore. Spin it all you want but this proved to be false for whatever reason you or them want to give. I also knew that prior to the global alliance lead by the US to expell Iraq from Kuwait(Gulf War 1), that Osama and Al Queda had requested of Saudi royals to be allowed to do the job themselves (so much for the Saddam/Osama beer drinking and ballgame friendship although they are both Sunni) and that Osama felt very angry over being rebuffed by the Royals and the Infidels being allowed in on their "Holy Ground." After the 1st Gulf War we remained there in Saudi to maintain the no/fly zone which further displeased Osama and the radical Wahhabi's and it was this event threshold that began the Al Queda attacks on the west and specifically the US. A removal of Saddam, thus a removal of US forces and or presence on Saudi ground could likely qwell Osama and Al Queda and they devote their time and energy towards other elements. Plus the fact that we were expending large sums of tax dollars on acting as Saddam's jailer and maintaining his "house arrest" in effect andfor how long do we do this? In hindsight, the parties who found Saddam should have turned off the cameras, capped Saddam in the head, threw him back in that spider hole and walked away as if nothing happened. In the days to come, leak the info of his location to trusted Iraqi persons so that they find the body and the Iraqi people can know he has gone to be with his 70 virgins. Then we pack our bags and get out and wish them well. Would their be chaos? Likely but it's also likely it could spill over into Iran's doorstep and handcuff them and don't forget Syria on the other side. In other words, let them take each other out if they so choose to do so. Devilish, sneeky, evil bastard ain't I. But at least my way get's us out of the region, no nation building or empirical desires, have them so busy fighting each other which is what they've done for forever anyway and if someone does rise to the top they'll be so beat up and torn to pieces that they will have a Blue light, midnight madness sale of their oil just to get enough money to buy the basics. In other words, peace through economics which is usually in the end what drives it anyway. We just haven't evolved to see how stupid war is so until that day comes you just have to go with the flow and economics tends to be a deciding factor! That's my take for what it's worth and not much I'm sure! :lol: Hey BTW Jones, speaking of polls, over the last few weeks the republicans have seen some positive rebounds and the lastest Clinton/Fox deal appears to also have helped thus fueling the "vast rightwing/Fox News Conspiracy." The American public is so herded and driven by events that 2 weeks before the election Bush could fart in public and if the media spun it right for opinion effect, every republican in office would get voted out as a result of the smell. The same is true the other way. We are truly sheep lead to the slaughter! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Bill Clinton interview on Fox
Top