How many troops? Are you comparing Clinton to GWB? While Clinton kept some troops GWB invaded a whole country based on nothing. Which one do you think made a bigger mistake?usmarine2005 wrote:
Wrong. They are mad at US troops in the ME, and that goes back a long way, way before 9/11. Yet bubba kept troops there anyway, despite terrorist attacks on many US targets. So again, how did clinton not anger them?sergeriver wrote:
There's a difference between political statements and fucking things up. That's the difference between Clinton and GWB.
Why did he invade Iraq?Mekstizzle wrote:
Any president would've responded to 9/11 like that. It was huge compared to anything the country had seen before. I am talking about it being huge compared to the African Embassy Bombings, the first WTC bombing etc..
Think about it, just talking physically, it was 1000X more bigger.
Ya...don't blame the insurgents for anything. I mean, I know it is US troops blowing up power lines and stuff just for the hell of it.sergeriver wrote:
At least he didn't fuck the Middle East up even more invading Iraq.G3|Genius wrote:
actually, usmarine, i think that Clinton emboldened them by not doing anything after the 3 terrorist attacks against americans during his administration. Sure, he lobbed a few missiles at some empty buildings, but seriously, he did nothing.
Bin Laden seriously underestimated America when he ok'ed the 9-11 attacks.
Not doing ANYTHING after multiple attacks.sergeriver wrote:
Which one do you think made a bigger mistake?
Oh about Iraq, yeah that's stupid. That's an "only George" thing. I would think that other presidents would've started TWAT (The War On Terrorism ) and invaded A-stan if they were in charge during 9/11. So when people hail King George as being the only person that would've responded to 9/11 like he did, I think that's wrong.sergeriver wrote:
Why did he invade Iraq?Mekstizzle wrote:
Any president would've responded to 9/11 like that. It was huge compared to anything the country had seen before. I am talking about it being huge compared to the African Embassy Bombings, the first WTC bombing etc..
Think about it, just talking physically, it was 1000X more bigger.
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-08-05 11:18:34)
Then we agree.Mekstizzle wrote:
Oh about Iraq, yeah that's stupid. That's an "only George" thing. I would think that other presidents would've started TWAT (The War On Terrorism ) and invaded A-stan if they were in charge during 9/11. So when people hail King George as being the only person that would've responded to 9/11 like he did, I think that's wrong.sergeriver wrote:
Why did he invade Iraq?Mekstizzle wrote:
Any president would've responded to 9/11 like that. It was huge compared to anything the country had seen before. I am talking about it being huge compared to the African Embassy Bombings, the first WTC bombing etc..
Think about it, just talking physically, it was 1000X more bigger.
Why do you keep trying to make me look like the one who said the troops are doing a bad job there? I'm criticizing GWB, not the troops. I blame the insurgents, but where were the insurgents before?usmarine2005 wrote:
Ya...don't blame the insurgents for anything. I mean, I know it is US troops blowing up power lines and stuff just for the hell of it.sergeriver wrote:
At least he didn't fuck the Middle East up even more invading Iraq.G3|Genius wrote:
actually, usmarine, i think that Clinton emboldened them by not doing anything after the 3 terrorist attacks against americans during his administration. Sure, he lobbed a few missiles at some empty buildings, but seriously, he did nothing.
Bin Laden seriously underestimated America when he ok'ed the 9-11 attacks.
Get real.
Are you serious? How can that be worse than invading Iraq?usmarine2005 wrote:
Not doing ANYTHING after multiple attacks.sergeriver wrote:
Which one do you think made a bigger mistake?
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-08-05 11:40:44)
No....but if he had done something, maybe we wouldn't even be at this point.sergeriver wrote:
Are you serious? How can that be worse than invading Iraq?
OMG, now you blame Clinton for Iraq. Next thing we'll know is Clinton is to blame for the Holocaust.usmarine2005 wrote:
No....but if he had done something, maybe we wouldn't even be at this point.sergeriver wrote:
Are you serious? How can that be worse than invading Iraq?
Nope. But if he had done his job MAYBE things would be different.sergeriver wrote:
OMG, now you blame Clinton for Iraq.
Actually, I have an article that does indeed blame Clinton for the Holocaust. I just need to dig that..............hold on, it is here somewhere. Talk amongst yourselves.sergeriver wrote:
OMG, now you blame Clinton for Iraq. Next thing we'll know is Clinton is to blame for the Holocaust.usmarine2005 wrote:
No....but if he had done something, maybe we wouldn't even be at this point.sergeriver wrote:
Are you serious? How can that be worse than invading Iraq?
What job are you talking about? Taking care of domestic issues and leaving the presidency with one of the highest approval ratings in history? Having a record surplus? Caring about American business? Leaving the American flag in high consideration by the rest of the World? You are right, he didn't do his job.usmarine2005 wrote:
Nope. But if he had done his job MAYBE things would be different.sergeriver wrote:
OMG, now you blame Clinton for Iraq.
That's all well and good but cutting the military budget and NOT responding effectively to any terrorist attacks against US targets put us in a very bad position.sergeriver wrote:
What job are you talking about? Taking care of domestic issues and leaving the presidency with one of the highest approval ratings in history? Having a record surplus? Caring about American business? Leaving the American flag in high consideration by the rest of the World? You are right, he didn't do his job.usmarine2005 wrote:
Nope. But if he had done his job MAYBE things would be different.sergeriver wrote:
OMG, now you blame Clinton for Iraq.
Again, why do you blame Clinton for acting according to the inteligence reports he had? Blame the CIA. What has GWB done to respond effectively to terrorism?usmarine2005 wrote:
That's all well and good but cutting the military budget and NOT responding effectively to any terrorist attacks against US targets put us in a very bad position.sergeriver wrote:
What job are you talking about? Taking care of domestic issues and leaving the presidency with one of the highest approval ratings in history? Having a record surplus? Caring about American business? Leaving the American flag in high consideration by the rest of the World? You are right, he didn't do his job.usmarine2005 wrote:
Nope. But if he had done his job MAYBE things would be different.
No attacks in the US since 9/11 is a good start tbh.sergeriver wrote:
What has GWB done to respond effectively to terrorism?
Do you really think he deserves any credit for that? If the terrorists want, they'll attack anywhere. What about the attacks in London and Madrid? Isn't GWB to blame for those? Not to mention the 50-100 dead people a day in Iraq.usmarine2005 wrote:
No attacks in the US since 9/11 is a good start tbh.sergeriver wrote:
What has GWB done to respond effectively to terrorism?
ummm.... no. How about their leaders who sent THEIR troops everywhere we have been for the past decade or so. Jesus christ serge, you really do not hold people responsible for their own mistakes unless they are US do you?sergeriver wrote:
What about the attacks in London and Madrid? Isn't GWB to blame for those?
That's more of the Iraqis fault that they're killing each other though because of their religion.sergeriver wrote:
Not to mention the 50-100 dead people a day in Iraq.
I'm defending Clinton right now. Not Blair or Aznar. You just focus on my criticism of Bush.usmarine2005 wrote:
ummm.... no. How about their leaders who sent THEIR troops everywhere we have been for the past decade or so. Jesus christ serge, you really do not hold people responsible for their own mistakes unless they are US do you?sergeriver wrote:
What about the attacks in London and Madrid? Isn't GWB to blame for those?
You asked me a question and I answered it. What the fuck is the matter with you now?sergeriver wrote:
I'm defending Clinton right now. Not Blair or Aznar. You just focus on my criticism of Bush.usmarine2005 wrote:
ummm.... no. How about their leaders who sent THEIR troops everywhere we have been for the past decade or so. Jesus christ serge, you really do not hold people responsible for their own mistakes unless they are US do you?sergeriver wrote:
What about the attacks in London and Madrid? Isn't GWB to blame for those?
Yeah, coz the insurgency was the same before the invasion.M.O.A.B wrote:
That's more of the Iraqis fault that they're killing each other though because of their religion.sergeriver wrote:
Not to mention the 50-100 dead people a day in Iraq.
Ya...that was coz troublemakers were gassed.sergeriver wrote:
Yeah, coz the insurgency was the same before the invasion.
You answered a question but you also accused me of criticizing Americans only, and that's not true.usmarine2005 wrote:
You asked me a question and I answered it. What the fuck is the matter with you now?sergeriver wrote:
I'm defending Clinton right now. Not Blair or Aznar. You just focus on my criticism of Bush.usmarine2005 wrote:
ummm.... no. How about their leaders who sent THEIR troops everywhere we have been for the past decade or so. Jesus christ serge, you really do not hold people responsible for their own mistakes unless they are US do you?
Nope. I accused of holding GWB accountable for those attacks and not the leaders of those free countries who exercised their own free will.sergeriver wrote:
You answered a question but you also accused me of criticizing Americans only, and that's not true.