Comparing Japan to Al Queda is ridiculous.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Clinton could have easily announced a prime time press conference where he laid out a war plan to get back at Bin Laden et al for the 1993 WTC attack, Khobar towers, African Embassies, USS Cole, etc before terrorism got out of hand and he would have gotten full support from the American people as well as both political parties. Too bad he didn’t try.
You don’t honestly believe this, do you? You had an entire party focused on Clinton’s sex life. There was so much crap flowing around due to the massive witch hunt for semen stains that there is no way he could have gained public support when the country perceived no threat worth the effort. People would have gladly sent their sons and husbands off to war for a “possible” threat?
Hind sight is 20/20. Apparently, gullibility just runs into you from your blind spot.
Actually, I do believe this was possible. I was/am a member of the Clinton hating right wing who was jumping up and down screaming for action after the USS Cole attack. I backed the Kosovo war effort, and I would have backed a start of a global war on terrorism. So would all of the other right wingers I have spoken to about this.
Hindsight is 20/20, so I will not convict Clinton of not doing enough. Clearly, if he had known 9/11 was coming and could have been averted he would have thrown everything he had at the problem. Unfortunately, as you say, he was tied up in the sex mongering scandal (too bad he was actually guilty as hell) and had very little political capital to spend.
That is why a well laid out case, similar to what he did Sunday morning on Fox News, directly to the American people for support of this new global anti-terror initiative would have worked. It could have been a much more limited plan; ala strangle their finances, special forces attacks, allied nation involvement, etc. Personally, I believe he should have been tried, convicted, and possibly executed for crimes of treason (think nuclear weapons technology to China for campaign cash), but I would have supported him in a war effort.
What you fail to comprehend is that although we right wingers are hard core Clinton haters, we’re not completely blinded by our hate either and are willing to put the good of the USA ahead of politics (hint…hint…to you left wingers who are so caught up in Bush hatred you can’t see other evil in the world).
If I’m gullible, then the evidence is my willingness to give Clinton a complete pass for everything he claimed on FoxNews Sunday except for his hands being tied by a lack of FBI/CIA certification on the USS Cole attack. He can’t claim that, and he certainly can’t claim Bush didn’t retaliate either because his hands were as equally tied (or not); you can’t have it both ways!
Yah, all the wingers were ready and willing for war. That is simply bs. Or are you saying that your recent discussions now say that you would have gone to war then if only Clinton had done something about it? Again, your hindsight arguments are impeccable.
Actually he did claim that and I’m quite certain that, except for you, most political experts agree with his assertion. Once again you are comparing two different scenarios, two different times and equating them. As tidy as you want to make it, that doesn’t make it so.
[/quote]
It’s not BS! The Kosovo war is a great example of the right wing lining up behind Clinton. There was vigorous debate about “why?” and “what’s the national interest?” and when all was said and done and Clinton wanted to go to War he got the support he needed and the dissent stopped. Clearly a war against terrorism is more supportable than the Kosovo war.
Why didn’t Clinton at least try?
Okay, so I’m not allowed to draw comparisons between two similar though not identical events, fair enough then.
Since when does the FBI/CIA have approval authority over the execution of foreign wars? Still sounds like a coward’s excuse to find a reason, any reason, not to get into the fight. How many terrorist attacks would it have taken to get Clinton riled up?
He suffered at least 5 signficant ones. I’m not a big fan of the total american bodycount/dollars of damage argument. As a right winger, all american lives are of high value and worthy of protection. I would be mad as hell and screaming for retaliatory strikes if terrorists blew up an ACLU convention!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps you missed Doogie’s posts debunking Clinton’s statements?
[/quote]
Ummmmmm…what exactly did he debunk?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Comparing Japan to Al Queda is ridiculous.[/quote]
Please explain why?
The original comparison was for similar acts of war (both directly against naval vessels) and the responses of two democrat presidents where one went thundering off to battle and the other hid behind FBI/CIA certifications (lack thereof).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps you missed Doogie’s posts debunking Clinton’s statements?
Ummmmmm…what exactly did he debunk?
[/quote]
Hey, he quoted Rush! What more debunking could you need? Rush knows everything and always tells the truth, and would never dream of selectively cherry picking his facts for purposes of spin.
(And I go to the DR with a bag of Viagra just for the golf and fishing, too.)
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The difference is that Japan had expansionist intentions and al Qaeda does not. Al Qaeda is only politically motivated.
I would consider al Qaeda’s vision of a modern day caliphate expansionist.
They want to rule the Muslim world.
Under the caliphate non-muslims are treated as equal citizens (dhimmi–or person of contract) so I would say al Qaeda does not fit this description becasue they are breaking shariah law by going against Muhammad.
The Prophet Muhammad said: “Whoever harms a dhimmi has harmed me.”
Besides that, al Qeada’s intentions are not that clear. They are angry for some reason and that is all we really know.[/quote]
Protected yes. Equal no way.
A dhimma is a person who has submitted to the rule of Islam and who does not fight it. It is correctly described as “subjection with protection”. The protection being against further Jihad
The dhimma must cede his land, agree to be bound by Islamic law and not fight the expansion of Islam. He must also pay the jizya and fight with the Muslim armies if asked to do so. Other duties may be assigned via treaty, which must be no longer then 10 yrs. and is breakable by the Muslim if it serves Islam. The treaty is called a treaty of subjection.
It’s amazing to me how some people here apply highly selective memory to these issues.
It is pretty clear that the Bush WH discounted or ignored any intel or warnings that they received prior to 9/11 that didn’t include the words “Iraq” or “Saddam”. They came into office completely fixated on Iraq, and the fact that someone other than Iraq had attacked us completely caught them off guard. Trying to revise that history now just ain’t going to fly.
[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Comparing Japan to Al Queda is ridiculous.
Please explain why?
The original comparison was for similar acts of war (both directly against naval vessels) and the responses of two democrat presidents where one went thundering off to battle and the other hid behind FBI/CIA certifications (lack thereof).[/quote]
Japan is a country while Al Queda is a bunch of guys wearing flip-flop and AKs that have no host country we could drop nukes on and end this ‘war on terror’.
Your arguement falls apart when we try to compare military targets.
Your intellectual dishonesty does not change the facts.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Comparing Japan to Al Queda is ridiculous.
Please explain why?
The original comparison was for similar acts of war (both directly against naval vessels) and the responses of two democrat presidents where one went thundering off to battle and the other hid behind FBI/CIA certifications (lack thereof).
Japan is a country while Al Queda is a bunch of guys wearing flip-flop and AKs that have no host country we could drop nukes on and end this ‘war on terror’.
Your arguement falls apart when we try to compare military targets.
Your intellectual dishonesty does not change the facts.
[/quote]
Wow!
Okay, I’ll grant all your argument points. It is difficult to target ICBMs on Al Qaeda vs. a nation-state, but it’s not difficult to go after means of finance and known individuals. It appears the Bush administration has been somewhat successful in that approach, completely unrelated to the mess in Iraq.
What intellectual dishonesty? I’m doing my best to provide legitimate (to me) correlations between events and I get personally attacked for it.
Where have I been dishonest? Which by the way means exactly what I’ve instructed my children it means; it requires a forethought and knowledge of a deliberate intention to mislead the listener with “facts” known to be false. That is the difference between being “wrong” and “lying”. I might be wrong routinely, but I’ve never lied.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Comparing Japan to Al Queda is ridiculous.
Al Queda is a bunch of guys wearing flip-flop and AKs that have no host country we could drop nukes on and end this ‘war on terror’.
[/quote]
Actually, if you’re really willing to drop nukes to end to end the war on terror, then we can develop a list of “host” countries which have been known to willingly harbor Al Qaeda and/or resupply them with arms and money. The list could include, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and probably a few more all of which appear to be concentrated in the Middle East.
I’d reckon that a massive nuclear strike on those nations would pretty much result in a victory in the war on terror. Unfortunately, slaughtering a billion or so peaceful Muslims to get to the bad guys would be a crime against humanity and and should not seriously considered.
However, if 10-20 American cities go up in nuclear flames I reserve the right to change my opinion.
[quote]tme wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps you missed Doogie’s posts debunking Clinton’s statements?
Ummmmmm…what exactly did he debunk?
Hey, he quoted Rush! What more debunking could you need? Rush knows everything and always tells the truth, and would never dream of selectively cherry picking his facts for purposes of spin.
(And I go to the DR with a bag of Viagra just for the golf and fishing, too.)
[/quote]
Actually they were quotes from Richard Clarke and others that shred Clinton’s fantasy.
Good to see you are not paying attention.
[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
I’d reckon that a massive nuclear strike on those nations would pretty much result in a victory in the war on terror.
[/quote]
Then you have not only been keeping your eyes closed through this entire campaign but you are teetering on the edge of insanity. If more and more force seems to be creating more and more terrorists…exactly how much of a holy war do you think a nuke would bring on? We aren’t fighting any type of conventional war. We are fighting ideals and beliefs that can be picked up by others easily. You don’t end that with more fire power. This is what many have tried to tell you but I doubt it will ever sink in.
[quote]NE2000 wrote:
Explain then how Sec. Rice has managed to be so successful in life, if she cannot be trusted with your car keys.[/quote]
Rice is a mercenary; a gun for hire with absolutely no principles, who will lie, cheat or basically do or say ANYTHING to get what she is told to get. She’s a pit bull.
I’ve personally seen her cheating and lying many times, until she was finally replaced at Stanford. To this day, I’m immensely thankful she was never my boss – people who worked for her are still in therapy.
That comes handy sometimes to some people, and that, along with the fact that she extensively leverages stereotypes to her advantage, has allowed her to reach her position.
By the way, “successful” is a very relative term – her academic career was far from successful, for example – and not because she’s a conservative (she was a Democrat for a while, and turned when she saw her talents were more appreciated on the other side of the fence).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Then you have not only been keeping your eyes closed through this entire campaign but you are teetering on the edge of insanity. If more and more force seems to be creating more and more terrorists…exactly how much of a holy war do you think a nuke would bring on? We aren’t fighting any type of conventional war. We are fighting ideals and beliefs that can be picked up by others easily. You don’t end that with more fire power. This is what many have tried to tell you but I doubt it will ever sink in.[/quote]
Religious Fundamentalism is like a virus; you don’t kill it with antibiotics or radiation therapy… They will just make things worse. Only your own body’s immune system can take care of it. If you interfere with your body’s immune system, however, you’re bound to just help the virus spread more quickly and completely take over…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
I’d reckon that a massive nuclear strike on those nations would pretty much result in a victory in the war on terror.
Then you have not only been keeping your eyes closed through this entire campaign but you are teetering on the edge of insanity. If more and more force seems to be creating more and more terrorists…exactly how much of a holy war do you think a nuke would bring on? We aren’t fighting any type of conventional war. We are fighting ideals and beliefs that can be picked up by others easily. You don’t end that with more fire power. This is what many have tried to tell you but I doubt it will ever sink in.[/quote]
Sigh…
If you’d read the rest of my post you’d notice I declared that to be an unthinkable crime against humanity. You haven’t proven the case that terrorism is the result of american force projection. Seems like a reasonable enough assertion to discuss, but you haven’t offered any evidence to support it. Sort of like when Joycelyn Elders declared “poverty is at the root of crime”. Sounds good, could/should be right, but you actually need to have some facts too.
Again, why are the appeasement nations of Spain and France still being attacked? They’re not on our side of this fight.
Now that I’ve achieved near-edge insanity status:
So tell me, what would be the proper response to a WMD attack against America?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Rice is a mercenary; a gun for hire with absolutely no principles, who will lie, cheat or basically do or say ANYTHING to get what she is told to get. She’s a pit bull.
[/quote]
You sound like she shot your down.
More than once.
I love when Clinton tells the newscastr to be honest. It makes me giggle inside.
[quote]doogie wrote:
You sound like she shot your down.
More than once.[/quote]
I hate repeating myself, but…
At the time, there was nothing she could do to harm me directly and she never talked to me (or at me – she mostly talks at people). So, no, she did not shoot me down. However, she did a lot of harm to people I consider my friends, and, as I said before, that infuriates me far more than if she had tried to shoot me down – which I’m pretty sure she never would have.
(she’s a cowardly bully – she always picked smaller adversaries – people who either were too far below her to defend themselves or people who were physically very non-threatening to her.)
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think we should start bitching about Reagan and his lack of response to the embassy bombing and subsequent pullout.
What a pussy! Talk about making the enemy think America is dickless! That is where it all began…[/quote]
If we were going to start that pissing match, IMO, we would come to the hands-down worst Pres. in U.S. History. This all started under Carter. And the fucker has a Nobel Peace Prize, what bullshit.
[quote]hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
You sound like she shot your down.
More than once.
I hate repeating myself, but…
At the time, there was nothing she could do to harm me directly and she never talked to me (or at me – she mostly talks at people). So, no, she did not shoot me down. However, she did a lot of harm to people I consider my friends, and, as I said before, that infuriates me far more than if she had tried to shoot me down – which I’m pretty sure she never would have.
(she’s a cowardly bully – she always picked smaller adversaries – people who either were too far below her to defend themselves or people who were physically very non-threatening to her.)
[/quote]
I hate repeating myself, but it sounds like you wanted a piece of the Condi and she shot you down.
More than once.