BF2S Forums Bill Clinton DID suck

Varegg wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Varegg wrote:

You are right ... 3 trillion gazillion dollars in debt is way better than a balanced budget ...

funny that you think if 9/11 had happened in lets say 1993 during the first attack, that you think the economy would not have taken a huge hit.  but, seems you people forget that shit.  not surprised.

There was terror in the world before 911 no ? ... flawd argument tbh

there was no 9/11 on US soil.  thats my point.  stop being a muppet.

usmarine wrote:

Varegg wrote:

How can you actually claim what lead and what didn't lead to 911 and the two wars after that, when you first are on the road of speculations you can just as easily follow that road back to Bush Sr. and maybe even further than that ...

bush sr. did start it by helping kuwait and having bases in saudi.  but clinton proved to terrorists they we wont respond.  well, because we didnt.  you dont need a think tank to figure that out.  try and live outside the google world for a bit.

You respond - terrorists respond - you respond - terrorists respond - you respond - etc etc etc ... where is it going to end i wonder ... and what has google to do with it all ?

bush sr. did start it by helping kuwait and having bases in saudi.

Duh, you do know having Americans on Saudi soil was a major motivation for 9/11?
Was it a problem being denied the use of those bases for the Iraq invasion? 
Have you noticed how there are no US bases there now?

but clinton proved to terrorists they we wont respond.  well, because we didnt.

Apart from the various cruise missile attacks which were pretty well all he could have done. Invading Afghanistan was not really an option at that point.
Duhbya CHOSE to do absolutely zip, despite being specifically told OBL was determined to attack on US soil, probably using commercial aircraft.
Duh....

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't understand why people think Clinton's decision to pull out of Somalia was a bad one. Fucking pointless venture in a deadbeat irrelevant country.

I don't blame Clinton for that...but here's the argument:

We had the ability to stabilize the region and decided not to.  Look at the country now.  And unfortunately, if it's too toxic for the US to handle...what country would?

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't understand why people think Clinton's decision to pull out of Somalia was a bad one. Fucking pointless venture in a deadbeat irrelevant country.

I don't blame Clinton for that...but here's the argument:

We had the ability to stabilize the region and decided not to.  Look at the country now.  And unfortunately, if it's too toxic for the US to handle...what country would?

Why do you think you could have stabalized the region then when you can't do it now ?

Edit: Damn ... Cam beat me to it

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

We had the ability to stabilize the region and decided not to.  Look at the country now.  And unfortunately, if it's too toxic for the US to handle...what country would?

Your problem is with the first part of your first sentence. Why would you imagine you could stabilise Somalia? You haven't stabilised Afghanistan (with the help of many other nations) and Iraq is a segregated politically-paralysed country ready to explode as soon as they see the back of the US troops. You can't condense several centuries of political development into a couple of years deployment, nor should one really bother if said region isn't directly affecting your home country (which generally entails them being a neighbour). Not to mention factoring in the cost in money terms and in terms of blood.

Well, that's a matter of opinion isn't it?

I can cite other examples if you wish (Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama...), but they aren't relevant because they aren't Somalia.

Varegg wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Varegg wrote:

There was terror in the world before 911 no ? ... flawd argument tbh

there was no 9/11 on US soil.  thats my point.  stop being a muppet.

So all the terror on non US soil is okay and can be dealt with at a more casual level ?

jesus christ.

the kobar towers did not effect the financial center of the US did it?  do i have to draw it in crayon?

m3thod wrote:

usmarine wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

The problems in Iraq started when it was first drawn on a map, expecting Shiites, Sunni and Kurds to live in the one country instead of three separate independent states.

nope.  the problem is the only people who dont behave like animals are the kurds.  the other two can only be controlled by a dictator.  quite sad really.

i wouldnt be so sure of that.  Ask the Turks.

well, the kurds have prospered big time is my point.  although it never gets reported.  go figure.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

How about this then?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart … x?id=43960


   

President Bush said the United States would regard the Geneva Conventions as applying to Taliban detainees under U.S. control -- but not Al Qaeda detainees.

Apparently you can ignore the Geneva Conventions for one group but not the other. Some pretty big distinction you would think?

There IS a big distinction. The Taliban represented a government and are therefore afforded GC protection as lawful combatants. AQ is not associated with any nation's government...therefore, they are not lawful combatants and as such, are not necessarily afforded GC protections.

Additionally, one's actions can remove one from protected status quite easily. It's all right there in the GC.

While we're on the subject of sucking, apparently the 2009 US deficit will be U$438Bn.
GG Duhbya

Well, if Clinton sucked, how do you define GWB's government?  I mean, cmon guys, the US was way better with Clinton than with this asshole.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Interesting that someone would WANT to remove GC protection from any group.

Interesting that someone would act in a way they KNOW removes protected status from them. It's not a matter of anyone else removing their protected status...they do it to themselves via their actions.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Either they are combatants or criminals, there is nothing else.

You really need to actually READ the GC before making statements like that.

What am I saying?! YOU don't need to read it and bother with those pesky facts and whatnot. You're a self-proclaimed GC scholar, after all.

Well non-combatants do not apply to the GC, you're right there.... but as the USA one would hope we grant our prisoners, foreign or not, the same rights we grant our citizens......

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-10 18:17:26)

And just why should we do that?

- You might be then able to occupy the moral high ground, instead of wading around in the sewage wrestling with AQ.
- You might then have some grounds for complaint when your troops - currently unlawful combatants in Iraq, and your mercenary 'contractors' get dismembered.
- Nobody gave a toss who won in the Iraq-Iran war, the protagonists were as bad as each other. Now the US is in about the same position - which can't be in your long or short term interests.
- Next time a bunch of nuts wipe out your commercial buildings the rest of the world might care, instead of assuming you provoked it by your own illegal actions and leaving you to sort it out for yourselves.

What am I saying?! YOU don't need to read it and bother with those pesky facts and whatnot. You're a self-proclaimed GC scholar, after all.

A few of us have been through that with you already.
Just because some weasel lawyer reckons he has found a loophole in the Geneva Convention and the UNCHR  - which nobody outside the US believes exists - doesn't make it either legal or the morally right thing to do.