jumperconway 0 #1 July 15, 2004 Subject: Confusing..... Lemme see, have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad. Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad. Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad. Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad. Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad. Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad. Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Recession under Bush - bad. Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - Bad. Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad. Clinton denounces terrorist training in Afghanistan - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad. No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad. Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam in custody - bad. Ah, it's so confusing! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #2 July 15, 2004 QuoteSubject: Confusing..... Lemme see, have I got this straight? Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad. Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad. Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad. Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad. Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad. Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad. Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Recession under Bush - bad. Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - Bad. Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad. Clinton denounces terrorist training in Afghanistan - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad. No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad. Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam in custody - bad. Ah, it's so confusing! So true, yet so sad. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #3 July 15, 2004 Just a few factual errors in there. Never spoil a good story for the sake of the truth, though.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #4 July 15, 2004 QuoteJust a few factual errors in there. Never spoil a good story for the sake of the truth, though. And they are? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #5 July 15, 2004 Quote Just a few factual errors in there. Never spoil a good story for the sake of the truth, though. Yea, the factual error left out was that the mass graves in Iraq weren't mentioned. Bad? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #6 July 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteJust a few factual errors in there. Never spoil a good story for the sake of the truth, though. And they are? Well, you can start with the cost of the war in Iraq, and move on from there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #7 July 15, 2004 QuoteWell, you can start with the cost of the war in Iraq, and move on from there. So, is it fine for Clinton to spend $77B? Were you outraged? Think about how that money could've been spent. It's a good thing we got him out of office. [/end sarcasm] http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1156890#1156890 -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #8 July 15, 2004 I'm suprised no one has corrected him in his spelling of "Cary's" name yet. Usually you all are like sharks on blood with shit like that. What's wrong with you all? Is the end of the world upon us? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #9 July 15, 2004 QuoteI'm suprised no one has corrected him in his spelling of "Cary's" name yet. Usually you all are like sharks on blood with shit like that. What's wrong with you all? Is the end of the world upon us? Don't you know that it won't be the end of the world until Bush is re-elected? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #10 July 15, 2004 QuoteClinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... To be fair, I believe that Clinton bombed the "Christian" Serbs to stop an ongoing genocide. That bombing also, IIRC, eventually led to a peace deal (or at least a cease fire) between the Serbs and the Albanians. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #11 July 15, 2004 Well the end of the world is near. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #12 July 15, 2004 QuoteClinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Ahhh yes, thats why we issued appologies for this action. http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uscn/others/belgrade.htm http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uscn/wh/1999/0514.htm This was cited as another intelligence failure in 2000, but I forget which agency took the blame for it.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #13 July 15, 2004 QuoteJust a few factual errors in there. Never spoil a good story for the sake of the truth, though. Yeah, Clinton didn't REALLY bomb anyone... the military did it for him. I see what you're saying...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #14 July 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteJust a few factual errors in there. Never spoil a good story for the sake of the truth, though. Yeah, Clinton didn't REALLY bomb anyone... the military did it for him. I see what you're saying... Why don't you check the figures on the cost to the US of it's actions in Serbia and Iraq. You will find the article way overstated the cost of Serbia and way understated the cost of Iraq. There are other untruths and half truths too. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to spot them. This article is just more junk from the web.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #15 July 15, 2004 What is that saying? "STOP THE WAR.... unless a democrat is president" I thought that was funny. To your point, maybe you are correct, but it makes your position much more compelling if you put the facts in your post... instead of just telling people to do their homework. It, in fact, may be junk... but at least back it up.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #16 July 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteWell, you can start with the cost of the war in Iraq, and move on from there. So, is it fine for Clinton to spend $77B? Were you outraged? Think about how that money could've been spent. It's a good thing we got him out of office. [/end sarcasm] http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1156890#1156890 Where did the $77B figure come from? According to the US Air Force it was more like $20B It may also be worth noting that Serbia was a NATO initiative, not a "pre-emptive" Bush war.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #17 July 15, 2004 QuoteWhat is that saying? "STOP THE WAR.... unless a democrat is president" I thought that was funny. To your point, maybe you are correct, but it makes your position much more compelling if you put the facts in your post... instead of just telling people to do their homework. It, in fact, may be junk... but at least back it up. The person posting the junk is the one that should justify the "data". However, here's one: www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/TrueCostWar.html The cost of Iraq is so well documented that I don't think I need point out that the "data" provided is wrong by a long way. But I will anyway: www.ips-dc.org/iraq/costsofwar/ Happy now?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #18 July 15, 2004 more freeking democratic bullshit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 July 15, 2004 QuoteI'm suprised no one has corrected him in his spelling of "Cary's" name yet. Usually you all are like sharks on blood with shit like that. What's wrong with you all? Is the end of the world upon us? It does sort of make you dismiss the entire thread. I'm trying to figure out what point is made by mispelling it that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #20 July 15, 2004 QuoteThe cost of Iraq is so well documented that I don't think I need point out that the "data" provided is wrong by a long way. But I will anyway: So what price would you put on removing a dictator who for 30 years murdered, tortured, raped and robbed countless numbers of his own citizens and had no plan on stopping? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #21 July 15, 2004 QuoteHappy now? Ecstatic. The only saving graces of any of the articles listed is that they quoted their sources. I wouldn't have thought Serbia to be more expensive... it's a lot smaller and we didn't have to do too much other than launch missiles.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #22 July 15, 2004 >So what price would you put on removing a dictator who for 30 years >murdered, tortured, raped and robbed countless numbers of his own > citizens and had no plan on stopping? The price will be thousands of american lives. In the end, that matters a lot more than the money. What price would you put on the life of a child of yours? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #23 July 15, 2004 Quote What price would you put on the life of a child of yours? Born or unborn? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #24 July 15, 2004 QuoteThe price will be thousands of american lives. In the end, that matters a lot more than the money. What price would you put on the life of a child of yours? So you prefer to look the other way. If we did that, how many more Jews would have been slaughtered during the holocaust? As for the American lives lost, they were volunteer soldiers who knew the risk and were willing to take it to save lives. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #25 July 15, 2004 QuoteSo what price would you put on removing a dictator who for 30 years murdered, tortured, raped and robbed countless numbers of his own citizens and had no plan on stopping? so the reason for the war was humanitarian now? If that is really the main priority for employing US military and financial resources those 150'000 or so troops should be standing in various countries in Africa, plagued by genocides, civil wars, their own brutal dictators, and the corruption and warlordism that exacerbate famines and epidemic diseases, all of proportions far beyond those in Iraq. Also, the theory of a "humanitarian motivated war" (intriguing phrase) in Iraq is not consistent with the obvious blunders and lack of thought or care in the post-war security planning. Basic international law states that an occupational force must do all necessary to ensure security for citizen and provide the infra structure for their survival. The troop strength was just enough to take Baghdad and a couple more cities. It was not enough to even control all cities in Iraq - not to mention to provide public safety in them. All that flying in the face of several expert estimates of nearly three times the needed amounts of troops to provide post-war stability and thus fulfill international law. (On top of that the admin went against several advices not to disband regular Iraqi army and security force - now to be "flip-flop-reversed" with a vengeance). Not only violence by insurgent's attacks but far more than that ordinary crime is taking its toll in lives - Iraqi public safety become especially troubling for women. Some people even calculated that the number of killings per day caused by the war and its consequences still exceeds the number of killings per day caused by the injustices of the Saddam regime. (I don't have the time to redo the science but it seems to be in the ballpark at least) Given that Iraq did not appear to be the greatest existing or impending humanitarian catastrophe and that one could make the case that the admin policy essentially broke international law on a crucial humanitarian safety issue I cannot see much plausibility in the idea that the admin was driven by humanitarian reasons to go to war. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
