Bill Clinton says he would "fight and die" to defend Israel from Iranian aggression

[Fuzzness 2]

sure, he lied under oath about getting a #######. not about reasons to attack a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us.

Yeah, I definitely think we all are in agreement that Iraq was no threat whatsoever to us. Especially Saddam, he was a doll. So peaceful too!

What are you - living in a bubble????

nice one. your blindness impresses me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...and exactly what should have Clinton done differently? You can be an armchair general and argue whether different military actions should have taken place, but to say Clinton made a huge military error is not accurate. The plan to take out warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid failed, but you can't exactly blame that on Clinton.

quite simple - he could have let the military go into the cities with the m-2/3 bradley and same for the m-1. instead, we saw a precursor to the mess we've had in iraq with heavy casualties due to the lightly armored or no armored wheeled vehicles. but no, such was denied to the military as the powers that be in washington decided that such would be provoking them. and of course, soldiers died from such idiocy. but my simple question is - what is anyone gonna do to a m-1? it eats crunchies (ground soldiers) for breakfast.

now if the intelligence about aidid was bad, and we can't blame clinton, why is it that the intelligence was bad about wmd's and we blame bush?

Destroy the village to save it? I think you don't understand what we were trying to do in Somalia. The command of the operation to take out Mohamed Aidid was out of Clinton's hands. He wasn't telling them how many men to use or what equipment was sufficient.

Now, compare that to the criticism of the Bush Administration in Iraq with ill-equiped soldiers - that criticism was coming from military personnel. Also, there was a military general who gave his expert advice as to the number of troops needed in Iraq to keep the peace, but he was ignored by the Bush Administration.

In any case, it's funny that Clinton is some kind of blundering idiot in the eyes of Republicans when it comes to military operations (doesn't know what a rifle is), but Bush is some kind of cowboy "Don't Mess With Texas" hero, because he ain't afraid of escalating the situation. Clearly, each president has been involved in military decisions that at the very least we can say were in error. How much of that blame falls on their shoulders? Clinton had not put our soldiers in Somalia - they were there already from Bush Sr.. GWB on the other hand went on a PR campaign around the country to make the case for war with Iraq. Two very different situations.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[dalegg 143]

...and exactly what should have Clinton done differently? You can be an armchair general and argue whether different military actions should have taken place, but to say Clinton made a huge military error is not accurate. The plan to take out warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid failed, but you can't exactly blame that on Clinton.

quite simple - he could have let the military go into the cities with the m-2/3 bradley and same for the m-1. instead, we saw a precursor to the mess we've had in iraq with heavy casualties due to the lightly armored or no armored wheeled vehicles. but no, such was denied to the military as the powers that be in washington decided that such would be provoking them. and of course, soldiers died from such idiocy. but my simple question is - what is anyone gonna do to a m-1? it eats crunchies (ground soldiers) for breakfast.

now if the intelligence about aidid was bad, and we can't blame clinton, why is it that the intelligence was bad about wmd's and we blame bush?

Destroy the village to save it? I think you don't understand what we were trying to do in Somalia. The command of the operation to take out Mohamed Aidid was out of Clinton's hands. He wasn't telling them how many men to use or what equipment was sufficient.

Now, compare that to the criticism of the Bush Administration in Iraq with ill-equiped soldiers - that criticism was coming from military personnel. Also, there was a military general who gave his expert advice as to the number of troops needed in Iraq to keep the peace, but he was ignored by the Bush Administration.

In any case, it's funny that Clinton is some kind of blundering idiot in the eyes of Republicans when it comes to military operations (doesn't know what a rifle is), but Bush is some kind of cowboy "Don't Mess With Texas" hero, because he ain't afraid of escalating the situation. Clearly, each president has been involved in military decisions that at the very least we can say were in error. How much of that blame falls on their shoulders? Clinton had not put our soldiers in Somalia - they were there already from Bush Sr.. GWB on the other hand went on a PR campaign around the country to make the case for war with Iraq. Two very different situations.

“It’s clear to me that nothing short of war will stop Iraq from using its weapons.” -John Englund, Software Developer, From the Onion, September 2002.

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

now if the intelligence about aidid was bad, and we can't blame clinton, why is it that the intelligence was bad about wmd's and we blame bush?

If you find some evidence that the Clinton administration 'fixed' the intelligence around a pre-determined policy, I'll agree with you

i'll pass on doing so fishdude, i don't want to be sued for you having an aneurysm

Destroy the village to save it? I think you don't understand what we were trying to do in Somalia. The command of the operation to take out Mohamed Aidid was out of Clinton's hands. He wasn't telling them how many men to use or what equipment was sufficient.

let's leave out the vietnam era sayings first off. i'm quite aware of what we were doing in somalia, and you can also park the assumptions.

yes, clinton and the upper command structure dictated that armor would not be taken into the city. research it.

Now, compare that to the criticism of the Bush Administration in Iraq with ill-equiped soldiers - that criticism was coming from military personnel. Also, there was a military general who gave his expert advice as to the number of troops needed in Iraq to keep the peace, but he was ignored by the Bush Administration.

soldiers are always ill-equipped. we were seeing the same thing that took place in somalia. that humvee's are not made for combat. if you want to transport people safely, use an apc like the 113 or better yet a bradley m-2/3

generals are frequently ignored by politicians. do you think this is a new phenomena? for that matter, a general or two was ignored about the request for armor in somalia!

In any case, it's funny that Clinton is some kind of blundering idiot in the eyes of Republicans when it comes to military operations (doesn't know what a rifle is), but Bush is some kind of cowboy "Don't Mess With Texas" hero, because he ain't afraid of escalating the situation. Clearly, each president has been involved in military decisions that at the very least we can say were in error. How much of that blame falls on their shoulders? Clinton had not put our soldiers in Somalia - they were there already from Bush Sr.. GWB on the other hand went on a PR campaign around the country to make the case for war with Iraq. Two very different situations.

clinton has no military experience and i never did trust him. granted bush is somewhat of a cowboy and goes off half cocked.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Noticeable points:

• BillyBubba specifically mentioned Iran and Iraq--nations which have NO common borders with Israel, and a minimum distance to Israel of 400 (Iraq) and 950 (Iran) respectively; that would be like telling a group of Banglas that he would be enthused to defend Bangladesh against Thai or Cambodian aggression (Bangladesh generally watches Burma, which is ruled by an erratic junta; otherwise India which borders it on three sides)
  
• due to the location (last I checked, Pigtown is in Canada and its residents generally cannot vote in US elections), such comments could easily be taken as the onset of senility :lol:
  
• the article is almost four years old!
  

So Gupt, was this meant to be a gag thread?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

clinton has no military experience and i never did trust him. granted bush is somewhat of a cowboy and goes off half cocked.

As if the knucklehead we have now is well weathered in military expertise...hahahaha...now that's funny. You do know what a Chickenhawk is, right? Washington is full of 'em - many of which have helped propel and engineer the war in Iraq - but apparantly that's not relevant?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you find some evidence that the Clinton administration 'fixed' the intelligence around a pre-determined policy, I'll agree with you

i'll pass on doing so fishdude, i don't want to be sued for you having an aneurysm

If you say so Charles. But between you and me - it's because you can't

Though feel free to continue with the 'quick witted' jibes unassociated to the topic under discussion.

Edited July 17, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

If you find some evidence that the Clinton administration 'fixed' the intelligence around a pre-determined policy, I'll agree with you

i'll pass on doing so fishdude, i don't want to be sued for you having an aneurysm

If you say so Charles. But between you and me - it's because you can't

Though feel free to continue with the 'quick witted' jibes unassociated to the topic under discussion.

to find fixed intelligence one would need the security clearance to see such, would they not? and you keep harping about bush did this and bush did that, yet i doubt you saw the information either

carry on, mr pontificater

As if the knucklehead we have now is well weathered in military expertise...hahahaha...now that's funny. You do know what a Chickenhawk is, right? Washington is full of 'em - many of which have helped propel and engineer the war in Iraq - but apparantly that's not relevant?

yes, i know what the term chickenhawk is. it has multiple meanings.

now did you ever find that les aspin was to blame? and who was he? and who did he report to?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you find some evidence that the Clinton administration 'fixed' the intelligence around a pre-determined policy, I'll agree with you

i'll pass on doing so fishdude, i don't want to be sued for you having an aneurysm

If you say so Charles. But between you and me - it's because you can't

Though feel free to continue with the 'quick witted' jibes unassociated to the topic under discussion.

to find fixed intelligence one would need the security clearance to see such, would they not? and you keep harping about bush did this and bush did that, yet i doubt you saw the information either

carry on, mr pontificater

Because of course you should always trust the government. I wonder what it is about them that seems to command such absolute confidence - the nepotism, the conflicts of interests, the lies, the dirty tricks?

Bush did 'fix' the intelligence for Iraq - I'm comfortable with my opinion, based on what I've seen and read. Again noone's forcing you to agree. Just pointing out, as Steven_and_Jinky has already stated that comparing disparate events and circumstances is the same as comparing chalk and cheese. Again noone's forcing you to agree.

Once again, if you can't get over that simple reality perhaps you should leave the thread - rather than try to make it something it isn't.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Once again, if you can't get over that simple reality perhaps you should leave the thread - rather than try to make it something it isn't.

Nothing wrong with a properly executed thread hijack. The trick is to not let people realize what's happened till it's too damn late

[workin4somethin 0]

... granted bush is somewhat of a cowboy and goes off half cocked.

he's always half cocked - check out the video:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...o&itemID=31

[46]

He was one hell of a better President than that knucklehead we've got now.

Ok, I'll bite.

How?

For starters, Bill can actually complete a full sentence. The point is that many right leaning people 'hate' Bill, 'hate' Hillary, 'hate' Carter, 'hate' Kerry. Let's be honest. You hate 'em primarily because of their political ideologies and not because of any character flaws. 'Cause if you wanna compare character flaws, the current Repubs in Washington are quite the motley crew.

This thread was a way of jabbing at Clinton even though he's been out of the White House now for 6 years and coincidently, the quote was from 4 years ago so it's been taking out of context and made to look like he was commenting on the current situation which is intellectually dishonest at best.

Silly me. I thought you were forming opinions on policy success. My mistake.

Please don't tell me whom I hate or why I would hate anyone. My views of any individual are based on slightly more than public eloquence.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As if the knucklehead we have now is well weathered in military expertise...hahahaha...now that's funny. You do know what a Chickenhawk is, right? Washington is full of 'em - many of which have helped propel and engineer the war in Iraq - but apparantly that's not relevant?

yes, i know what the term chickenhawk is. it has multiple meanings.

now did you ever find that les aspin was to blame? and who was he? and who did he report to?

So if you know what a Chickenhawk is, why is it relevant in Clinton's case that he had no military experience, but it's a non-issue for you with regard to Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. - the key players who engineered the war in Iraq?

[almaty 19]

Once again, if you can't get over that simple reality perhaps you should leave the thread - rather than try to make it something it isn't.

Nothing wrong with a properly executed thread hijack. The trick is to not let people realize what's happened till it's too damn late

yeap, some of the best threads ever were hijacks

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He was one hell of a better President than that knucklehead we've got now.

Ok, I'll bite.

How?

For starters, Bill can actually complete a full sentence. The point is that many right leaning people 'hate' Bill, 'hate' Hillary, 'hate' Carter, 'hate' Kerry. Let's be honest. You hate 'em primarily because of their political ideologies and not because of any character flaws. 'Cause if you wanna compare character flaws, the current Repubs in Washington are quite the motley crew.

This thread was a way of jabbing at Clinton even though he's been out of the White House now for 6 years and coincidently, the quote was from 4 years ago so it's been taking out of context and made to look like he was commenting on the current situation which is intellectually dishonest at best.

Silly me. I thought you were forming opinions on policy success. My mistake.

Please don't tell me whom I hate or why I would hate anyone. My views of any individual are based on slightly more than public eloquence.

Look at this thread? Was this a commentary on Clinton's policy making or a jab at the man? I was responding to inCanada's ranting, but you chose to bite so now what? This thread became a circle jerk to guffa over a quote made by Clinton 4 years ago and make it seem as if he was commenting on the current crisis. snicker, sncker...Bill and a rifle...tee hee. Sorry, but I'm callin it like it is.