StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SPOOFE wrote:Oh, yeah, I do miss Clinton. I disagree with a lot of his politics, and he was a bit of an ass, but damn, he was funny.

I prepared a very long post about what I thought of Clinton, the good, the bad. But after finishing it and checking over it, I discovered that it really didn't have a point. It was mostly an unorganized rant. So I deleted it, and it now is simply:

Yeah, say what you want about Clinton, but you have to admit he sure kept us entertained for eight years.

I love it when the economy is going down, a war is going on and the Middle East is a powder keg and the US is the spark and Ol' GW goes on a month long "working vacation." Shouldn't he be putting all his energy towards catching Osama, or defeating the Islamic Terrorists. But he's off golfing with dear old dad and herding cows.

And now he expects us to support him on his personal vendetta against Iraq. Crush that evil little man so my dad doesn't look so bad in the history books and neither do I.

SPOOFE wrote:Oh, yeah, I do miss Clinton. I disagree with a lot of his politics, and he was a bit of an ass, but damn, he was funny. We should appoint Clinton to the office of "Public Figure For Life", just so we never miss out on his "appearances" on Conan O'Brien.

Clinton should have been Gore's running mate. That would have been funny.

Are you suggesting that Iraq shouldn't be invaded and/or bombed? And are you one of those people that still thinks Osama is still alive? He had some medical problems with his stomach and back. He had to have kidney dialysis treatments frequently. He's most likely dead from the bombings. Even if the bombings didn't kill him, if the bombings took out the machines needed for his kidney dialysis treatments....bye bye bin.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/emme ... 0801.shtml

I know you don't trust these links anymore. I sure as hell don't. So if you don't want to go there, ask me and I'll copy and paste the article here.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Are you suggesting that Iraq shouldn't be invaded and/or bombed?

Saddam should've been taken out at the end of the Gulf War, but it didn't happen because the gutless coalition didn't want to take responsibility for Iraq.
Now Bush wants to flatten them in a war of convenience, that's what's wrong..

And are you one of those people that still thinks Osama is still alive? He had some medical problems with his stomach and back. He had to have kidney dialysis treatments frequently. He's most likely dead from the bombings. Even if the bombings didn't kill him, if the bombings took out the machines needed for his kidney dialysis treatments....bye bye bin.

We don't know for sure do we?
For all we know, he got sanctuary somewhere, got some brand new life sustaining machines and is planning 9/11 part 2, we just don't know, but we WOULD have if Bush hadn't pranced about like a moron announcing his intentions weeks before the US actually did anything in Afghanistan.
Like it or not, he lost Osama.

If we're playing the blame game, they say that Clinton was practically handed bin Laden.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote: If we're playing the blame game, they say that Clinton was practically handed bin Laden.

Ok then. The CIA armed most of those extreme Islamic groups in the 80's INCLUDING OSAMA to fight the Soviets. And they put Saddam Hussein in power because he opposed radical Islam. Evil though he may be, he doesn't like the fundies. And if he is removed and the opposition groups take charge they will make it a Fundie state like Iran, Pakistan.

And I don't think Iraq <edit>should<edit> be bombed, not because I support Saddam but becasue Bush is making up things to give him an excuse to invade. ie, the captured pilot story, the weapons inspectors, somehow he supported terrorists, or how he's evil.

And how do you know he is dead, for all we know he is right next door to you with a nuke. We have no body and no proof of his death. If he wanted to disappear he could, and very likely would never find him.

It's not bush that is dangeorus, it is... CHENEY!

LOL

I doubt he could go anywhere with no proper medical facilities to have his kidney treated. The blame game goes like this: We blame people for doing bad things or screwing up.

The CIA didn't necessarily do a bad thing in giving them arms to fight the Soviets, and they certainly didn't screw up. Furthermore, putting someone in charge who hates radical Islam, which is the root of terrorism, was a smart thing to do. Now if this guy was proven to be a terrorist himself before the events of the Gulf War, they screwed up and did a bad thing. But I don't have that information. Clinton did a bad thing by ignoring the offer of Osama bin Laden's custody for bombing our embassies. Bush screwed up by letting the people know that we were going into Afghanistan and openly stating that he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive.

But didn't everyone see that coming the minute they learned bin Laden was behind it? You think the U.S. government would just do nothing? It was just common sense that we would invade Afghanistan and want to kill bin Laden.

So we can blame Bush (maybe) and Clinton (definitely), but not the CIA. Clinton came before Bush, and I think doing something bad is worse than screwing up, especially since doing something good would have negated the screwing up, so....

Bahahaahaha!!! Drop him on Sodamn Insane and he'll take care of them all!!!

And I don't think Iraq shouldn't be bombed, not because I support Saddam but becasue Bush is making up things to give him an excuse to invade. ie, the captured pilot story, the weapons inspectors, somehow he supported terrorists, or how he's evil.

Wait a minute...you don't think Iraq shouldn't be bombed? Then you are saying that Iraq should be bombed. Then you say it's not because you support Saddam. So which one is it? You want Iraq bombed or not bombed? And what excuses do we really need? He is a ruthless asshole who is no better than Osama bin Laden. I doubt the CIA knew he was just as bad as the terrorists that bombed the embassies when they put him in charge. But this is speculation. Do you have any articles that cover this topic?

I doubt he could go anywhere with no proper medical facilities to have his kidney treated.

If he is in Pakistan he could get treatment, and plastic surgery.

The CIA didn't necessarily do a bad thing in giving them arms to fight the Soviets, and they certainly didn't screw up. Clinton did a bad thing by ignoring the offer of Osama bin Laden's custody for bombing our embassies. Bush screwed up by letting the people know that we were going into Afghanistan and openly stating that he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive.

It may not have been bad, but they didn't think in the long term. They gave them the weapons and training and when the war was over they left. The country went to shit and became a haven for scum like osama.
And what is that about Clinton, I havn't heard it explain.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say it was bad for Bush to announce the attacks of AFG. But then you say it is common sense that an attack was going to happen.

So much for Stategic Suprise....

The way you star the war with a Cowardly Enemy is an unexpected mass air-attack on every bunker near the captial within two hundred miles. Followed by Carpet bombing of the Tank laagers and repair facilites then you start on the citys themsleves

And then the Marines and Helicopters show up \\

Seriously to do the smart thing(As no other country has the ability or will to invade) move 300 Planes over there plus two Carriers. Every avaible Veteran Tank Unit and simply overwheel the bastard is the easit way

The one thing I really love about Bush, the french hate him. How bad could he be if he is antichrist to france?

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

And I don't think Iraq shouldn't be bombed, not because I support Saddam but becasue Bush is making up things to give him an excuse to invade. ie, the captured pilot story, the weapons inspectors, somehow he supported terrorists, or how he's evil.

Wait a minute...you don't think Iraq shouldn't be bombed? Then you are saying that Iraq should be bombed. Then you say it's not because you support Saddam. So which one is it? You want Iraq bombed or not bombed? And what excuses do we really need? He is a ruthless asshole who is no better than Osama bin Laden. I doubt the CIA knew he was just as bad as the terrorists that bombed the embassies when they put him in charge. But this is speculation. Do you have any articles that cover this topic?

I did mean should. It was a typo, I was tired.
And we should NOT BOMB IRAQ. Because he had NO part in 9/11. He is just an easy way to get a victory.

Mr. B wrote: I did mean should. It was a typo, I was tired.
And we should NOT BOMB IRAQ. Because he had NO part in 9/11. He is just an easy way to get a victory.

We're gonna bomb him because he's an asshole with Chemical/Biological/Nuclear
weapons and because HE'S USED THEM!

If it wasn't for that asshole Colon Bowel, we'd have thrown Saddam out
of power ten years ago. Thank God Powell isn't in charge of the Military
this time around....

Imperial Federation wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Are you suggesting that Iraq shouldn't be invaded and/or bombed?

Saddam should've been taken out at the end of the Gulf War, but it didn't happen because the gutless coalition didn't want to take responsibility for Iraq.
Now Bush wants to flatten them in a war of convenience, that's what's wrong..

Expect for the little fact that American and the UK, and technically every nation in the UN, is already at war with Iraq. Iraq is in non compliance with the cease fire that ended the Second Persian gulf war, thus placing the world at war with him that&#8217;s to a couple UN resolutions back in 1990 and 1991.

The US and UK already bomb or fire missiles at Iraqie targets about four times a week, and Iraq shoots at patroling aircraft about ten times per week.

Mr. B wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:

And I don't think Iraq shouldn't be bombed, not because I support Saddam but becasue Bush is making up things to give him an excuse to invade. ie, the captured pilot story, the weapons inspectors, somehow he supported terrorists, or how he's evil.

Wait a minute...you don't think Iraq shouldn't be bombed? Then you are saying that Iraq should be bombed. Then you say it's not because you support Saddam. So which one is it? You want Iraq bombed or not bombed? And what excuses do we really need? He is a ruthless asshole who is no better than Osama bin Laden. I doubt the CIA knew he was just as bad as the terrorists that bombed the embassies when they put him in charge. But this is speculation. Do you have any articles that cover this topic?

I did mean should. It was a typo, I was tired.
And we should NOT BOMB IRAQ. Because he had NO part in 9/11. He is just an easy way to get a victory.

Unhun, we had better recall the pair of Mavericks the USAF fired at that SA-3 battery on Thursday, if only Iraq would recall that SAM the unit launched&#8230;Wait, the SAM already missed and the missiles already wiped out the TEL and radar..

The shooting war is already ongoing you moron, it has been since 1998 when Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors after impeding there work for half a decade, putting them in non compliance with the cease fire.

Iraq attempts to kill American and British pilots on a daily basis. That alone is more then enough reason to go to war. His terrorist connections, NBC programs, mass murder, cease fire non compliance and a couple other good reasons for stepping up the attacks on Iraq all just add to the case.

So why haven't we gone to war with Saddam again. He keeps shooting missles at our planes for four years and we wait till now to attack for good. Every time before when he breaks the treaty we only do a limited response.

And what terrorist connections, he hates the fundie Islamic terrorists. And Saddam has never used his NBC weapons against us. And likely will only use them if he has no options left, ie his army gone and all he has is baghdad. And if he did we would use our NBC weapons.
And the US has never opted to go to war to stop a massmurder before. Remember Rawanda, Bosnia. The US acted in Bosnia after most of the bloodshed was over.

But all the war talk now is about how he had some part in 9/11 and should be destroyed. But we have seen no proof of this. In all likelyhood Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush realizes that he missed his chance to catch Osama and now he needs an easier victory to keep his approval ratings up and keep the other problems on the back page.

What the US should have done was in 1991 when we had the coalition, had the firepower, had the 500000 troops was crush him and there when we had a good reason to. Not now with no allies, and smaller military for some made up half-assed reasons. Like he shot a missle at us, or he won't let us in even though we have let it slide for 4 years or the best one of all, he's evil. If the US went after evil everywhere we would be operating in every country in the world for 50 years.

We should fight Iraq for the right reasons, not ones to bolster the stalled war on terror.

Look we are going to invade and kill Saddam, any reason is good enough for me, even for that dammed romance trilogy he wrote is good enough to go to war over.

Mr. B wrote:This guy is so fullof shit.

1. Harken energy deal, hypocrisy in DC was one of the things you were going to get rid wasn't it GW
2. Dept. of Homeland Security, if you really wanted to help secure this country you shouldn't have passed that huge tax cut which would have left lots of cash to safeguard our country
3. Entire Bush family, dirty rotten scoundrels GWB, GHWB, JB, every last one of them.


i am definitly no voting for him or his party in Nov.

Agreed. The man is an idiot! It wouldn't suprise me if he brought us into frelling World War 3 because of his incompetance.

You know why we haven't done all-out war on Iraq before Dubbya (hehe)came into office? Clinton. Talk about incompetence. Iraq refusing to let in inspectors, he doesn't do another Gulf War. He doesn't attempt to assassinate Saddam. Instead he bombs a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to get Monica out of the news. Instead he makes the CIA train Kurds to overthrow Saddam, and then pulls out just like the Bay of Pigs, resulting in failure. Osama bin Laden is handed to him after he bombed an American embassy, and he doesn't take him. The World Trade Center is bombed in 1993, and we don't investigate it thoroughly and clean out the terrorists. (I had to watch the Wizard of Oz because of that incident.....BASTARDS!!!! lol) Clinton decreased money for SDI (aka Star Wars), which would be excellent in dealing with countries that are only capable of launching a few nukes. In 1994, Clinton made an agreement with Korea that meant they would stop their nuclear weapons program, yet he never sent inspectors to see for himself if they did. Ex-President Carter had to step in Haiti to save Clinton from making an ass out of himself by spurring another Vietnam.

If you ask me, Clinton was far worse than any Bush president ever was or ever will be. At least Bush presidents realize that terrorists that attack America have to be annihilated. Economic policy may be shit, but foreign policy is excellent.

SDI is a horrible idea. Why would a country want to fire one or two missles at us when they know that we will respond with two hundred. Most of these tinpot dictators want only to hold onto power not play some kind of revenge game.

And it wont work. The "test" runs were bogus, they fed the location of the warhead to the missle and then it destroyed it. It won't work because if only one missle gets through it has failed. Deterrance has worked for 50 years, it'll work for 50 more years.

And it was Bush Sr who decreased the SDI funding not clinton.

And in the 93 bombing we caught the mastermind and several others. They were not part of al qaida, but another group that had a few connections to ql-qaida.