Gravitymaster 0 #101 April 13, 2004 Quote>You must have missed my post on another thread about Liberals >always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they > seldom can make a suggestion on current events. QuoteSometimes it actually makes more sense to learn from history, rather than repeating it. But feel free to repeat the same mistakes if you must. I'd prefer to not have another 9/11 myself, but that's just me. Agreed, but not when it has nothing to do with the present. >Yep, and look at how you libs are screaming about your civil right > after Sept 11. QuoteI always expect the civil rights afforded me by our constitution. Expected em before 9/11, expect em now. For you conservatives, the constitution is another old historical document that we .iberals use since we live in the past so much. I know, who wants to heed an ancient document when we have so many shiny new ones we could use? Us liberals are funny that way. The inconsistency I am pointing out is how the libs scream about why GWB did nothing to prevent Sept 11 and in the same breath whine and complain whenever something is done. >What would any libs have wanted GWB to do before Sept 11 that > wouldn't have involved "infringing" on your civil right and still protect > us? QuoteDetermine that the Al Qaeda terrorists mentioned in the PDR and the terrorists training to fly 757's that the FBI were watching were one and the same. Then arrest them. Believe it or not, we could arrest terrorists before 9/11 too, even if they committed no crimes in the US! Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #102 April 13, 2004 QuoteBTW, I really like your current avatar, kind of appropriate given your name and position of defending the indefensible, but shouldn't Sysiphus be pushing the rock uphill? Please name something indefensible I've defended. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #103 April 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteDetermine that the Al Qaeda terrorists mentioned in the PDR and the terrorists training to fly 757's that the FBI were watching were one and the same. Then arrest them. Believe it or not, we could arrest terrorists before 9/11 too, even if they committed no crimes in the US! Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. ...three times! It's unexplainable, and unexcusable.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #104 April 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDetermine that the Al Qaeda terrorists mentioned in the PDR and the terrorists training to fly 757's that the FBI were watching were one and the same. Then arrest them. Believe it or not, we could arrest terrorists before 9/11 too, even if they committed no crimes in the US! Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. ...three times! It's unexplainable, and unexcusable. Yep, but hey that memo, thats the real reason Sept 11th happened. Talk about defending the indefensible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #105 April 13, 2004 QuoteYep, but hey that memo, thats the real reason Memo's are where it's at dude. Even if a memo says nothing. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #106 April 13, 2004 Can you really not recognize a joke when you read it? I even included a little winky face! quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #107 April 13, 2004 QuoteThe point is that . . . well . . . let's just look at the first quote . . . Hey Quade, it's too bad you didn't bother to read the rest of those quotes. You might have understood my point that Bush wasn't alone in "knowing" Hussein was a threat that needed to be removed. The difference with Bush is that he was in a position to actually do something -- and did. I submit that history will look favorably on Bush for taking this action despite the current ferocity of the storm and nay-saying of the usual liberal whiners and Monday morning quarterbacks. QuoteThe next point I'd like to make is that if you think GWB was taking advise from Clinton, then you have to also assume that he took the information that the Clinton Administration had on OBL. I don't have to assume -- I can rely on the very credible testimony of Condie Rice. So far, nobody has released two year old tapes of her saying the exact opposite of what she said before the commission, so I find it easy to believe what she says. QuoteLastly, just because I'm agaisnt GWB in the war on Iraq, do not assume I'm for all of the people you've quoted. That's just silly. You've stated that you are "for" Kerry -- or at least that he will get your vote. Or are you yet another Kerry fan based soley on the fact that he's "not Bush"? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #108 April 13, 2004 QuoteDon't you just love to sit back an laugh at how the Libs run around wringing their hands and whining about how GWB should have known Al Qaeda would attack and he should have done something? The phrase "Keystone Cops" comes to mind . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #109 April 13, 2004 QuoteThen explain why Clinton turned down OBL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...three times! It's unexplainable, and unexcusable. You are right, Clinton made mistakes. But GWB he never makes or made any mistakes. he is perfect. He never does anything wrong. If somebody says he may have done something wrong, we'll just say that Clinton made mistakes too. And Clinton's mistakes are by definition worse than GWB's mistakes. And if I keep my head in the sand, nobody will see me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #110 April 13, 2004 Quote You've stated that you are "for" Kerry -- or at least that he will get your vote. Or are you yet another Kerry fan based soley on the fact that he's "not Bush"? I thought explained my position on Kerry recently. Hmmm, guess you didn't read it. Anyway, just because I'm against GWB's actions, doesn't mean I'm for Kerry. Yes, Kerry will get my vote, but only because there simply is no other choice. Again, that doesn't mean I'm one of his fans. It means that for me he's the lesser of two evils. I didn't want any evil in the Oval.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #111 April 13, 2004 >The inconsistency I am pointing out is how the libs scream about why > GWB did nothing to prevent Sept 11 and in the same breath whine > and complain whenever something is done. Name one thing that GWB did to stop 9/11 that liberals whined about. >Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. Clinton tried to kill OBL and failed. Bush tried to kill OBL as well and (thus far) has failed. So far they are both batting zero. Hopefully Bush will succeed where Clinton failed; we'll see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #112 April 13, 2004 Quote>The inconsistency I am pointing out is how the libs scream about why > GWB did nothing to prevent Sept 11 and in the same breath whine > and complain whenever something is done. QuoteName one thing that GWB did to stop 9/11 that liberals whined about. Nice attempt to misquote me. I said Liberals whine about what GWB didn't do. Apparently you are missing my point. That being that if GWB had implemented the security measures we currently have before Sept 11, liberals would have whined even more than they have about security measures post Sept 11. >Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. Clinton tried to kill OBL and failed. Bush tried to kill OBL as well and (thus far) has failed. So far they are both batting zero. Hopefully Bush will succeed where Clinton failed; we'll see. Nice side step. You said: QuoteThen arrest them. Believe it or not, we could arrest terrorists before 9/11 too, even if they committed no crimes in the US This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to hand over OBL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #113 April 13, 2004 >That being that if GWB had implemented the security measures we > currently have before Sept 11, liberals would have whined even >more than they have about security measures post Sept 11. You may be right. And 9/11 may not have happened. I prefer a leader who does what he thinks is right even if people whine. >This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to > hand over OBL. Ah, this would be conservatives "always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they seldom can make a suggestion on current events" angle, eh? But to answer your question, I have no idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #114 April 13, 2004 QuoteYes, Kerry will get my vote, but only because there simply is no other choice. Last I checked, this wasn't a two party system. There are plenty of people out there who want your vote. Don't like Bush or Kerry? Vote for the party of your choice and send a message. To vote for someone you don't like because you like the competition less is a wasted vote. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #115 April 13, 2004 Quote>That being that if GWB had implemented the security measures we > currently have before Sept 11, liberals would have whined even >more than they have about security measures post Sept 11. QuoteYou may be right. And 9/11 may not have happened. I prefer a leader who does what he thinks is right even if people whine. Sop you support GWB going into Iraq? >This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to > hand over OBL. QuoteAh, this would be conservatives "always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they seldom can make a suggestion on current events" angle, eh? I wouldn't put this in the same catagory as claiming internment camps would have to have been a consideration. Need any parts for an antique car? QuoteBut to answer your question, I have no idea. I appreciate your honesty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #116 April 13, 2004 >You may be right. And 9/11 may not have happened. I prefer a >leader who does what he thinks is right even if people whine. >Sop you support GWB going into Iraq? Nope. A leader who does nothing because people might whine is the worst possible leader; a leader who does the wrong thing under false pretenses to achieve another goal he wants to achieve is a little better, but not by much. I suppose it's too much to ask for a leader who is honest about his motivations, doesn't care about popular opinion - AND does what's best for the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #117 April 13, 2004 QuoteThe point was that many of the kids can't even carry an AK-47 because they are too little. How can a kid too small to carry an assault rifle be not a civilian????? It's interesting how you focus on those specific pictures. What about the photo of a group of U.S. soldiers being pummeled by a mob with rocks, while taking no defensive action other than to hide behind plexiglass shields? Doesn't that exhibit a great deal of restraint to you? What about the photo of two soldiers running, on fire, from a molotov cocktail thrown at them? I think the people committing those kinds of actions deserve to be shot by our soldiers. Even if they're juveniles. Their parents should teach them better, and our soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #118 April 13, 2004 QuoteWell, then compare american tactics against the insurgents to Wehrmacht repressions against resistance fighters as well... I hope you're not suggesting that U.S. soldiers are acting like Nazis. The Nazis would wipe out an entire village, just because a single resistance fighter was captured there. The Russians in Afghanistan, would wipe out a whole village, if a single .303 cartridge was found in a home there. Are you saying that you believe the U.S. is employing such brutal tactics? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #119 April 13, 2004 Quote i think there are better ways to get rid of someone like that... How about negotiating? Oh yeah, negotiation has proven to be quite effective in dealing with terrorists and getting them to surrendur and desist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #120 April 13, 2004 QuoteThe negotiation i meant was to avoid the street fighting and civilian casualties resulting from that I don't know how you could have missed it, if you've kept up with the news. The U.S. instituted a cease-fire. The Iraqiis refused to go along with it, and kept shooting anyway. There goes your "negotiation" ploy... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckbrown 0 #121 April 13, 2004 >This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to > hand over OBL. Ah, this would be conservatives "always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they seldom can make a suggestion on current events" angle, eh? But to answer your question, I have no idea. Just to set the record straight, Sudan offered to turn over OBL in 1996 at a time when he was only known to have been a financial backer of terrorists and specifically of backing a failed attempt to blow up a hotel full of U.S. troops in 1992. The FBI said they couldn't indict him criminally, and the Saudis said they didn't want him because of the potential religious backlash. Obviously in hindsight, we should have paid the Israelis to kill him, but we have laws against that (anybody for a repeal?). I'm not a Clinton fan, nor do I particularly care for Bush, but I voted for him because IMHO he was the lesser evil. I don't think the Democrats would have gone into Afghanistan after OBL which does seem to have put AQ back on its heels. As for Iraq, time will tell, but the lull in the violence does seem to be a good sign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #122 April 13, 2004 >The U.S. instituted a cease-fire. From today: "NAJAF, Iraq — U.S. forces used heavy firepower to regain control of strategic roads around Iraq." >The Iraqiis refused to go along with it Same article: "U.S. officials said they were giving negotiations a chance before moving against Sunni militiamen in Fallouja, where a tense cease-fire held for a third day today, and Shiite fighters in Najaf who are loyal to cleric Muqtada Sadr." >I don't know how you could have missed it . . . Gotta read more than the first page! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #123 April 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen explain why Clinton turned down OBL. ...three times! It's unexplainable, and unexcusable. You are right, Clinton made mistakes. But GWB he never makes or made any mistakes. he is perfect. He never does anything wrong. If somebody says he may have done something wrong, we'll just say that Clinton made mistakes too. And Clinton's mistakes are by definition worse than GWB's mistakes. And if I keep my head in the sand, nobody will see me I haven't said GWB didn't make any mistakes. There are a few issues domestically that I wish weren't the way they were, or that I wish he would change his position on (though, he's fairly consistent, and like/dislike, that ain't all bad). With regards to Iraq, we don't have any measurement, in my opinion, to determine success, or failure. Our mission there is not yet complete. Power has not been transferred (and I'm sure there are a few "cards" left in the deck we have to catch), etc. The fact that we haven't yet caught OBL is equally as important as the fact that we are still hunting him. In complete contrast, Clinton not only didn't look for him, he turned the opportunity away.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #124 April 13, 2004 Quote>The U.S. instituted a cease-fire. Gotta read more than the first page! Gotta read more than one article! "...even as the offensive was paused, sporadic fighting continued that left at least one Marine dead. At one point Friday, a convoy of humanitarian supplies was attacked. In another incident, the 1st Marine Division said at least 16 insurgents opened fire on Marines and retreated to a cave..." CNN #1 "A U.S. Army Apache helicopter was brought down by unidentified ground fire west of Baghdad on Sunday, military sources said, despite a cease-fire that was in effect in the region... Word of the attack came as deadlines passed for the release of civilian hostages being held by insurgents." CNN #2 "Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks of U.S. Central Command said Tuesday that coalition forces have had "encounters" with a group he identified as the People's Mujahedeen but that there is now a cease-fire... "We've had some encounters of various sorts with" the group, Brooks said at a news briefing. "And ... some of our actions involve targeting them with lethal fire." CNN #3 "Despite a pause in coalition offensive operations and a call for a cease-fire in the city of 200,000 people, "the enemy seems to continue to fight," Kimmitt said. Coalition forces were still taking small arms and mortar fire, and are "responding to enemy provocations and attacks," he said." CNN #4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Chrisky 2 #125 April 14, 2004 If you read my posts here, i didn't state anywhere that anyone is doing wrogn at shooting an attacker. I don't care about US soldiers shooting people that attack them with deadly weapons (compared to throwing stones at APCs). Applying the ducking for cover logic generally applied for iraqis in this forum, the soldiers were most likely only duck behind the plexiglass to reload... If you are fired upon with AKs and RPGs, Plexiglass won't help much, so were are those kids with AKs in that picture? I never stated that a soldier doesn't have the right for self defence. read again. Bombing living quarters in a town is not self defence, though.The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #102 April 13, 2004 QuoteBTW, I really like your current avatar, kind of appropriate given your name and position of defending the indefensible, but shouldn't Sysiphus be pushing the rock uphill? Please name something indefensible I've defended. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #103 April 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteDetermine that the Al Qaeda terrorists mentioned in the PDR and the terrorists training to fly 757's that the FBI were watching were one and the same. Then arrest them. Believe it or not, we could arrest terrorists before 9/11 too, even if they committed no crimes in the US! Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. ...three times! It's unexplainable, and unexcusable.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #104 April 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDetermine that the Al Qaeda terrorists mentioned in the PDR and the terrorists training to fly 757's that the FBI were watching were one and the same. Then arrest them. Believe it or not, we could arrest terrorists before 9/11 too, even if they committed no crimes in the US! Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. ...three times! It's unexplainable, and unexcusable. Yep, but hey that memo, thats the real reason Sept 11th happened. Talk about defending the indefensible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #105 April 13, 2004 QuoteYep, but hey that memo, thats the real reason Memo's are where it's at dude. Even if a memo says nothing. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #106 April 13, 2004 Can you really not recognize a joke when you read it? I even included a little winky face! quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #107 April 13, 2004 QuoteThe point is that . . . well . . . let's just look at the first quote . . . Hey Quade, it's too bad you didn't bother to read the rest of those quotes. You might have understood my point that Bush wasn't alone in "knowing" Hussein was a threat that needed to be removed. The difference with Bush is that he was in a position to actually do something -- and did. I submit that history will look favorably on Bush for taking this action despite the current ferocity of the storm and nay-saying of the usual liberal whiners and Monday morning quarterbacks. QuoteThe next point I'd like to make is that if you think GWB was taking advise from Clinton, then you have to also assume that he took the information that the Clinton Administration had on OBL. I don't have to assume -- I can rely on the very credible testimony of Condie Rice. So far, nobody has released two year old tapes of her saying the exact opposite of what she said before the commission, so I find it easy to believe what she says. QuoteLastly, just because I'm agaisnt GWB in the war on Iraq, do not assume I'm for all of the people you've quoted. That's just silly. You've stated that you are "for" Kerry -- or at least that he will get your vote. Or are you yet another Kerry fan based soley on the fact that he's "not Bush"? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #108 April 13, 2004 QuoteDon't you just love to sit back an laugh at how the Libs run around wringing their hands and whining about how GWB should have known Al Qaeda would attack and he should have done something? The phrase "Keystone Cops" comes to mind . . . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #109 April 13, 2004 QuoteThen explain why Clinton turned down OBL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...three times! It's unexplainable, and unexcusable. You are right, Clinton made mistakes. But GWB he never makes or made any mistakes. he is perfect. He never does anything wrong. If somebody says he may have done something wrong, we'll just say that Clinton made mistakes too. And Clinton's mistakes are by definition worse than GWB's mistakes. And if I keep my head in the sand, nobody will see me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #110 April 13, 2004 Quote You've stated that you are "for" Kerry -- or at least that he will get your vote. Or are you yet another Kerry fan based soley on the fact that he's "not Bush"? I thought explained my position on Kerry recently. Hmmm, guess you didn't read it. Anyway, just because I'm against GWB's actions, doesn't mean I'm for Kerry. Yes, Kerry will get my vote, but only because there simply is no other choice. Again, that doesn't mean I'm one of his fans. It means that for me he's the lesser of two evils. I didn't want any evil in the Oval.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #111 April 13, 2004 >The inconsistency I am pointing out is how the libs scream about why > GWB did nothing to prevent Sept 11 and in the same breath whine > and complain whenever something is done. Name one thing that GWB did to stop 9/11 that liberals whined about. >Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. Clinton tried to kill OBL and failed. Bush tried to kill OBL as well and (thus far) has failed. So far they are both batting zero. Hopefully Bush will succeed where Clinton failed; we'll see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #112 April 13, 2004 Quote>The inconsistency I am pointing out is how the libs scream about why > GWB did nothing to prevent Sept 11 and in the same breath whine > and complain whenever something is done. QuoteName one thing that GWB did to stop 9/11 that liberals whined about. Nice attempt to misquote me. I said Liberals whine about what GWB didn't do. Apparently you are missing my point. That being that if GWB had implemented the security measures we currently have before Sept 11, liberals would have whined even more than they have about security measures post Sept 11. >Then explain why Clinton turned down OBL. Clinton tried to kill OBL and failed. Bush tried to kill OBL as well and (thus far) has failed. So far they are both batting zero. Hopefully Bush will succeed where Clinton failed; we'll see. Nice side step. You said: QuoteThen arrest them. Believe it or not, we could arrest terrorists before 9/11 too, even if they committed no crimes in the US This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to hand over OBL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #113 April 13, 2004 >That being that if GWB had implemented the security measures we > currently have before Sept 11, liberals would have whined even >more than they have about security measures post Sept 11. You may be right. And 9/11 may not have happened. I prefer a leader who does what he thinks is right even if people whine. >This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to > hand over OBL. Ah, this would be conservatives "always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they seldom can make a suggestion on current events" angle, eh? But to answer your question, I have no idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #114 April 13, 2004 QuoteYes, Kerry will get my vote, but only because there simply is no other choice. Last I checked, this wasn't a two party system. There are plenty of people out there who want your vote. Don't like Bush or Kerry? Vote for the party of your choice and send a message. To vote for someone you don't like because you like the competition less is a wasted vote. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #115 April 13, 2004 Quote>That being that if GWB had implemented the security measures we > currently have before Sept 11, liberals would have whined even >more than they have about security measures post Sept 11. QuoteYou may be right. And 9/11 may not have happened. I prefer a leader who does what he thinks is right even if people whine. Sop you support GWB going into Iraq? >This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to > hand over OBL. QuoteAh, this would be conservatives "always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they seldom can make a suggestion on current events" angle, eh? I wouldn't put this in the same catagory as claiming internment camps would have to have been a consideration. Need any parts for an antique car? QuoteBut to answer your question, I have no idea. I appreciate your honesty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #116 April 13, 2004 >You may be right. And 9/11 may not have happened. I prefer a >leader who does what he thinks is right even if people whine. >Sop you support GWB going into Iraq? Nope. A leader who does nothing because people might whine is the worst possible leader; a leader who does the wrong thing under false pretenses to achieve another goal he wants to achieve is a little better, but not by much. I suppose it's too much to ask for a leader who is honest about his motivations, doesn't care about popular opinion - AND does what's best for the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #117 April 13, 2004 QuoteThe point was that many of the kids can't even carry an AK-47 because they are too little. How can a kid too small to carry an assault rifle be not a civilian????? It's interesting how you focus on those specific pictures. What about the photo of a group of U.S. soldiers being pummeled by a mob with rocks, while taking no defensive action other than to hide behind plexiglass shields? Doesn't that exhibit a great deal of restraint to you? What about the photo of two soldiers running, on fire, from a molotov cocktail thrown at them? I think the people committing those kinds of actions deserve to be shot by our soldiers. Even if they're juveniles. Their parents should teach them better, and our soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #118 April 13, 2004 QuoteWell, then compare american tactics against the insurgents to Wehrmacht repressions against resistance fighters as well... I hope you're not suggesting that U.S. soldiers are acting like Nazis. The Nazis would wipe out an entire village, just because a single resistance fighter was captured there. The Russians in Afghanistan, would wipe out a whole village, if a single .303 cartridge was found in a home there. Are you saying that you believe the U.S. is employing such brutal tactics? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #119 April 13, 2004 Quote i think there are better ways to get rid of someone like that... How about negotiating? Oh yeah, negotiation has proven to be quite effective in dealing with terrorists and getting them to surrendur and desist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #120 April 13, 2004 QuoteThe negotiation i meant was to avoid the street fighting and civilian casualties resulting from that I don't know how you could have missed it, if you've kept up with the news. The U.S. instituted a cease-fire. The Iraqiis refused to go along with it, and kept shooting anyway. There goes your "negotiation" ploy... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckbrown 0 #121 April 13, 2004 >This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to > hand over OBL. Ah, this would be conservatives "always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they seldom can make a suggestion on current events" angle, eh? But to answer your question, I have no idea. Just to set the record straight, Sudan offered to turn over OBL in 1996 at a time when he was only known to have been a financial backer of terrorists and specifically of backing a failed attempt to blow up a hotel full of U.S. troops in 1992. The FBI said they couldn't indict him criminally, and the Saudis said they didn't want him because of the potential religious backlash. Obviously in hindsight, we should have paid the Israelis to kill him, but we have laws against that (anybody for a repeal?). I'm not a Clinton fan, nor do I particularly care for Bush, but I voted for him because IMHO he was the lesser evil. I don't think the Democrats would have gone into Afghanistan after OBL which does seem to have put AQ back on its heels. As for Iraq, time will tell, but the lull in the violence does seem to be a good sign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #116 April 13, 2004 >You may be right. And 9/11 may not have happened. I prefer a >leader who does what he thinks is right even if people whine. >Sop you support GWB going into Iraq? Nope. A leader who does nothing because people might whine is the worst possible leader; a leader who does the wrong thing under false pretenses to achieve another goal he wants to achieve is a little better, but not by much. I suppose it's too much to ask for a leader who is honest about his motivations, doesn't care about popular opinion - AND does what's best for the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #117 April 13, 2004 QuoteThe point was that many of the kids can't even carry an AK-47 because they are too little. How can a kid too small to carry an assault rifle be not a civilian????? It's interesting how you focus on those specific pictures. What about the photo of a group of U.S. soldiers being pummeled by a mob with rocks, while taking no defensive action other than to hide behind plexiglass shields? Doesn't that exhibit a great deal of restraint to you? What about the photo of two soldiers running, on fire, from a molotov cocktail thrown at them? I think the people committing those kinds of actions deserve to be shot by our soldiers. Even if they're juveniles. Their parents should teach them better, and our soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #118 April 13, 2004 QuoteWell, then compare american tactics against the insurgents to Wehrmacht repressions against resistance fighters as well... I hope you're not suggesting that U.S. soldiers are acting like Nazis. The Nazis would wipe out an entire village, just because a single resistance fighter was captured there. The Russians in Afghanistan, would wipe out a whole village, if a single .303 cartridge was found in a home there. Are you saying that you believe the U.S. is employing such brutal tactics? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #119 April 13, 2004 Quote i think there are better ways to get rid of someone like that... How about negotiating? Oh yeah, negotiation has proven to be quite effective in dealing with terrorists and getting them to surrendur and desist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #120 April 13, 2004 QuoteThe negotiation i meant was to avoid the street fighting and civilian casualties resulting from that I don't know how you could have missed it, if you've kept up with the news. The U.S. instituted a cease-fire. The Iraqiis refused to go along with it, and kept shooting anyway. There goes your "negotiation" ploy... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #121 April 13, 2004 >This being said, explain why Clinton turned down Sudans offer to > hand over OBL. Ah, this would be conservatives "always jumping into their time machines to make a point since they seldom can make a suggestion on current events" angle, eh? But to answer your question, I have no idea. Just to set the record straight, Sudan offered to turn over OBL in 1996 at a time when he was only known to have been a financial backer of terrorists and specifically of backing a failed attempt to blow up a hotel full of U.S. troops in 1992. The FBI said they couldn't indict him criminally, and the Saudis said they didn't want him because of the potential religious backlash. Obviously in hindsight, we should have paid the Israelis to kill him, but we have laws against that (anybody for a repeal?). I'm not a Clinton fan, nor do I particularly care for Bush, but I voted for him because IMHO he was the lesser evil. I don't think the Democrats would have gone into Afghanistan after OBL which does seem to have put AQ back on its heels. As for Iraq, time will tell, but the lull in the violence does seem to be a good sign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #122 April 13, 2004 >The U.S. instituted a cease-fire. From today: "NAJAF, Iraq — U.S. forces used heavy firepower to regain control of strategic roads around Iraq." >The Iraqiis refused to go along with it Same article: "U.S. officials said they were giving negotiations a chance before moving against Sunni militiamen in Fallouja, where a tense cease-fire held for a third day today, and Shiite fighters in Najaf who are loyal to cleric Muqtada Sadr." >I don't know how you could have missed it . . . Gotta read more than the first page! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #123 April 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen explain why Clinton turned down OBL. ...three times! It's unexplainable, and unexcusable. You are right, Clinton made mistakes. But GWB he never makes or made any mistakes. he is perfect. He never does anything wrong. If somebody says he may have done something wrong, we'll just say that Clinton made mistakes too. And Clinton's mistakes are by definition worse than GWB's mistakes. And if I keep my head in the sand, nobody will see me I haven't said GWB didn't make any mistakes. There are a few issues domestically that I wish weren't the way they were, or that I wish he would change his position on (though, he's fairly consistent, and like/dislike, that ain't all bad). With regards to Iraq, we don't have any measurement, in my opinion, to determine success, or failure. Our mission there is not yet complete. Power has not been transferred (and I'm sure there are a few "cards" left in the deck we have to catch), etc. The fact that we haven't yet caught OBL is equally as important as the fact that we are still hunting him. In complete contrast, Clinton not only didn't look for him, he turned the opportunity away.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #124 April 13, 2004 Quote>The U.S. instituted a cease-fire. Gotta read more than the first page! Gotta read more than one article! "...even as the offensive was paused, sporadic fighting continued that left at least one Marine dead. At one point Friday, a convoy of humanitarian supplies was attacked. In another incident, the 1st Marine Division said at least 16 insurgents opened fire on Marines and retreated to a cave..." CNN #1 "A U.S. Army Apache helicopter was brought down by unidentified ground fire west of Baghdad on Sunday, military sources said, despite a cease-fire that was in effect in the region... Word of the attack came as deadlines passed for the release of civilian hostages being held by insurgents." CNN #2 "Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks of U.S. Central Command said Tuesday that coalition forces have had "encounters" with a group he identified as the People's Mujahedeen but that there is now a cease-fire... "We've had some encounters of various sorts with" the group, Brooks said at a news briefing. "And ... some of our actions involve targeting them with lethal fire." CNN #3 "Despite a pause in coalition offensive operations and a call for a cease-fire in the city of 200,000 people, "the enemy seems to continue to fight," Kimmitt said. Coalition forces were still taking small arms and mortar fire, and are "responding to enemy provocations and attacks," he said." CNN #4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chrisky 2 #125 April 14, 2004 If you read my posts here, i didn't state anywhere that anyone is doing wrogn at shooting an attacker. I don't care about US soldiers shooting people that attack them with deadly weapons (compared to throwing stones at APCs). Applying the ducking for cover logic generally applied for iraqis in this forum, the soldiers were most likely only duck behind the plexiglass to reload... If you are fired upon with AKs and RPGs, Plexiglass won't help much, so were are those kids with AKs in that picture? I never stated that a soldier doesn't have the right for self defence. read again. Bombing living quarters in a town is not self defence, though.The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open. From the edge you just see more. ... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
