Red State Views

[dusk_to_dawn]

No argument from me, there. The thing I disliked the most about Clinton was the executive branch power grab once he was in office. Pretty much every President has done the same thing, but it doesn't get any less repugnant with repetition.
The thing I disliked about Clinton is how he attacked Iraq citing WMDs as the reason for doing so.

In his words Dec. 1998 <<Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.>>

[Cool Dood]

Clinton lied! Clinton LIEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!

[setab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgeeeee Quote: Originally Posted by setab . . So you can stereotype "red state" people, call them "deep thinkers" and make fun of their opinions and suggest that anyone that feels that way is a "moron," but those aren't "cheap shots, they are thoughtful comments.* . . . But I didn't do any of those things.* *

You are correct. *I was using "you" way too broadly. *My bad. *Once again, I apologize. *My major concern is that there is little rational discussion of issues amidst all the name calling. *Both sides, and I mean both sides have resorted to denigrating the guy who won last by calling him and his supporters stupid. *I don't think that is constructive either way. *The left perceives the right to be arrogant and stupid; the right, on the other hand. perceives the left to be arrogant and immoral. *I happen to think both sides are correct at any given moment, at least about the arrogance, but as someone who lives in the middle of the red states, I resent the assertions from both directions. *I am not stupid because I am religious and believe there are absolute values that are important. *Nor am I unAmerican because I question the total erosion of the Bill of Rights by the current Administration. *Secret courts, midnight roundups of alleged terrorists etc. are anathema. *But neither side is discussing any of this because they are both too busy hating each other personally. *Sad.

setab

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Quote: Originally Posted by lets-retire When were the plans drawn up and the people trained to attack the towers? *It all stems from projecting an unwillingness to complete a job if it requires a the death of a few Americans. Bull****. *You are talking about trying to protect an unprotectable target at a time (pre 9/11) when people were much less willing to surrender their civil liberties than many of us seem to be today. *The attack on 9/11 stemmed from a bunch of radical fundamentalists being willing to trade their lives for Merkin lives and getting through the net. *The same thing (a successful attack of some sort) could easily happen again. *It is just a matter of time and there is little the gummint can really do about it besides make it tougher for these things to succeed. *The US is too open and too large a target. *Interfering in other sovereign nations' affairs without the cooperation of the est of the world will just exacerbate the problem. But I am genuinely curious: what do you think is a successful course of action for the US in Iraq? *Aside from "staying", what do you think needs to be done and can it realistically be accomplished? *I have to say that I don't really see any way it can end well, although I would love for it to turn out OK.

You, sir, are correct they were an unprotectable target. If Clinton had stood his ground instead of running when a few Rangers and Delta personnel were killed, I believe the terrorists would not have been so embolden as to strike at the mainland. What was his response to the bombing of our land at teh embassies in Africa? He lobed a few missles at Bin Laden. That in itself told Bin Laden that Clinton and presumabely the American people had lost the fearlessness to be the world leader.

What needs to be done is training of the Iraqi military and police forces to get then up to speed. They are a young force and still in the learning stages. Unfortunately it takes a long time to fully train someone up to task. Yes it can be accomplished, but it will take time. I find it ironic that people are compalining about how inept the Iraqi forces are. These are the same people who preach that a child doesn't know what is right or wrong and patience needs to be practiced.

[dusk_to_dawn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool Dood Clinton lied! Clinton LIEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now wait just a minute there Cool Dood. Some people aren't going to take too kindly to you calling Clinton a liar, especially the ones that want a Clinton clone in office. Maybe he was listening to John Kerry too much.

Kerry in 1997 <<In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out. ...>>

Sounds like Kerry saw a WMD problem all the way back in 1997.

Who cares who lied? - You all Lie!

Bush is incompetent and panders to the christian right - that has put this country in the ditch!

I'm tired of this christian right crap! - The GOP senate wasted its time today debating a Gay marriage amendment.

It's time for some sensible Democratic Government!

[alphabet soup]

Saluki, man, give it up...you're bailing water out of a sinking ship ( the neofascist republican party.)

And I say good riddance to bad rubbish!

[bosco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire If you prove to them that you are a hard target they will leave you alone. I doubt this country has the will power to prove to the bad people of the world that we have what it takes to be a hard target. You don't believe me go the the bad part of town and act like a coward. You'll be beaten and robbed quickly. Go to a different town's bad part and act like you fear nothing. You will be left alone.

anybody remember Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign, where he made the analogy of Russia being the schoolyard bully and all that needed to be done was to "stand up to the bully" and he would back down?

I remember my dad (nobody hated the Russians more than him--he and his parents had to flee to Canada from Russia in 1930) saying "I don't know...I can remember several times when the schoolyard bully cleaned somebody's clock pretty good."

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire What needs to be done is training of the Iraqi military and police forces to get then up to speed.

under Nixon, this strategy was called "Vietnamization." Didn't work too good either....

The more things change, the more they stay the same....

[lets-retire]

Bosco--Your absolutely correct if the bully is bigger/stronger/meaner than you are you will get beat up. But in this case WE are bigger/stronger, but not really meaner, but we can win.

The big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is Iraq is not supported by Russia, North Vietnam was. The Vietnamese also were hiding in Cambodia, a place we didn't want to go. So we did secret incursions there, but quickly went back to Vietnam. The Iraq insurgents are supported by criminals and terrorists, not a major world power.

[laurence]

That support was rather small, but more to the point, who was the major power that supported the American Colonies during the Rev. War? Yet we managed to kick out the most powerful empire the world had ever known! In fact, only about a third of people in the new world were in support of the rebellion, a similar number to who supports the insurgency in Iraq! When the people don't want you there, and your not willing to employ Stalin's methods (thank goodness), you are fighting a real uphill battle.

[bpp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence who was the major power that supported the American Colonies during the Rev. War?

France.

Bpp

[bosco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Bosco--Your absolutely correct if the bully is bigger/stronger/meaner than you are you will get beat up. But in this case WE are bigger/stronger, but not really meaner, but we can win. The big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is Iraq is not supported by Russia, North Vietnam was. The Vietnamese also were hiding in Cambodia, a place we didn't want to go. So we did secret incursions there, but quickly went back to Vietnam. The Iraq insurgents are supported by criminals and terrorists, not a major world power.

At the time the French pulled out of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh was called "the George Washington" of Vietnam. At the time the US installed their puppet, Diem into the phony puppet republic called "South Vietnam" Ho Chi Minh was estimated to have 80% support, and Diem, with US sanction, cancelled the reunification election that was called for under the Geneva Accords rather than allow a democratic election. If I recall correctly, Diem was a major heroin trafficer (I could be wrong on that point). He was the typical US general-installed-as-puppet. Recall that later in the war, one of the favorite ways to smuggle heroin into the US was on the body of US servicemen.

It is virtually impossible to win a war under those conditions. Yes, Russia supplied some material support. It was the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese that defeated the US.

Few nations have done as much bullying in recent history as the US. From Chile (illegally assassinating Allende) to Cuba (Bay of Pigs and the idiotic trade embargo), Iraq (I'm talking about before the gulf wars--helped establish Saddam as a way to have him attack Iran), Iran (after the Shah was deposed and a left-leaning prime minister was elected who threatened to nationalize the oil interests, the CIA and British intelligence engineered a counter-coup and reinstalled the Shah), it has been the policy of the US to install and maintain dictators rather than support democracy if the Democracy was not aligned with corporate interests, which it usually wasn't. Sometimes those damned foreigners don't vote the way we want them to and it's a lot harder to rig elections in other courtries than it is at home.

Yes, I am an American (actually dual US-Canadian citizen) and appreciate many things about the US. Its foreign policy is not one of them.

[laurence]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bpp Quote: Originally Posted by Laurence who was the major power that supported the American Colonies during the Rev. War? France. Bpp

Wow, usually people are ready to poo-poo France, but yes, France nominally supported the war, mostly after it's conclusion was no longer in doubt!

[bpp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence Wow, usually people are ready to poo-poo France, but yes, France nominally supported the war, mostly after it's conclusion was no longer in doubt!

They were rather more important than that. They declared war on Britain in sympathy with the colonists fairly early on (while the colonists were still regularly losing battles), tying up British military resources away from the Americas. They provided significant amounts of money and arms to the colonists, and their direct military assistance was instrumental in achieving the surrender at Yorktown.

They committed in a quite meaningful way well before the conclusion was in sight, and while it was still very much in doubt. The American Revolution might well have failed without their support.

[saluki9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphabet soup Saluki, man, give it up...you're bailing water out of a sinking ship ( the neofascist republican party.) And I say good riddance to bad rubbish!

When all rational arguments fail, call names!

:

[F-One]

Saluki9,

And your rational auguments for the supporters of the current administration are...........

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire The big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is Iraq is not supported by Russia, North Vietnam was.* The Vietnamese also were hiding in Cambodia, a place we didn't want to go.* So we did secret incursions there, but quickly went back to Vietnam.* The Iraq insurgents are supported by criminals and terrorists, not a major world power.*

Hmmm, somehow I can't help but think about the Afghan mess. The Soviets spent, what?, 10 years throwing their considerable military against a bunch of tinpot warlords who I don't believe got material support from anyone. They eventually left in defeat. The place ended up in anarchy until we stuck our snouts in. Reminds me of Viet Nam an awful lot. And I feel really sorry for whoever comes in after us in Iraq to try to clean up the mess...

[bpp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Hmmm, somehow I can't help but think about the Afghan mess.* The Soviets spent, what?, 10 years throwing their considerable military against a bunch of tinpot warlords who I don't believe got material support from anyone.

...other than the US, which was funneling weapons and money to Osama bin Laden and the mujahedeen to help them drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bpp ...other than the US, which was funneling weapons and money to Osama bin Laden and the mujahedeen to help them drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Note that I specifically said "material." Not sure how much and what was actually given to the local warlords and nutballs. Probably no way to ever really know.

[poboy]

For what it is worth, just returned from voting, republican primary of course. *As I tell my dem *pals, you vote your way and I vote mine. *I don't think I can *sway you and you won't sway me. *