[NSR] At What Price?

[Buster Highmen]

What about George the First in this regard?

Another underlying issue is that the CIA and US interests, independent of Dem/Rep incumbency (encumbency - HAH) fostered the creation of the Taliban in order to combat the Soviets. Mujah Hud'een.

It was interesting that the go ahead wasn't issued until George the Second was in office, though.

[Buster Highmen]

I do take issue with telling me what I'd say if Kerry had used those issues. Shut the fuck up, asshole.

[Mcwop]

Originally posted by bush_repub
Greydon, you got it right.
everybody else check

http://amishrakefight.org/gfy

Thanks for the warning not to open at work with the volume up - JONG!

[Jumper Bones]

bwahahahaha

[lemon boy]

Jetter you just don't get it do you?

Bill Clinton isn't responsible neither is the shrub: FUCKING OSAMA BIN LADEN AND HIS FUCKING CRAZY MOTHERFUCKING FOLLOWERS ARE FUCKING RESPONSIBLE!

The bottom line is that before 9-11 this country lacked the political will to go after terrorists in any significant manner.
Your argument is also just as valid against Newt and the REPUBLICAN controlled house and senate during Clinton's tenure. Hell blame shrub I and Regan and Carter and Nixon and Ford and Johnson and Kennedy and fucking Lincoln too!

Shrub had 9 whole months to turn things around on the terrorism front but didn't, why: because WE AMERICANS DIDN'T FUCKING CARE THAT'S WHY!

[Jumper Bones]

Originally posted by lemon boy
Jetter you just don't get it do you?

Bill Clinton isn't responsible neither is the shrub: FUCKING OSAMA BIN LADEN AND HIS FUCKING CRAZY MOTHERFUCKING FOLLOWERS ARE FUCKING RESPONSIBLE!

uh-huh

The bottom line is that before 9-11 this country lacked the political will to go after terrorists in any significant manner.
Your argument is also just as valid against Newt and the REPUBLICAN controlled house and senate during Clinton's tenure.

yes. except for that the legislature lacks executive controls over the operation of the military and/or intelligence services, and the president does have those controls. I'm upset at the nothing that was done after Khobar Towers, the Cole, and the very little to nothing after Tanzania and Kenya. The writing was on the fucking wall.

Hell blame shrub I and Regan and Carter and Nixon and Ford and Johnson and Kennedy and fucking Lincoln too!

Shrub had 9 whole months to turn things around on the terrorism front but didn't, why: because WE AMERICANS DIDN'T FUCKING CARE THAT'S WHY!

9 months is a very short amount of time to turn things around. And yes, it's hard to convince the American mass that caring about this is in their best interests, especially when the last 8 years of different practices had yielded unprecendented growth and profits.

It's also worth pointing out that pre-9/11, terrorism was mostly used as a form of politcal expression or communication; it hadn't yet been used much as a form of warfare. the only exception I can think of now was the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. Even the mujihadeen tactics used in Afghanistan against the Soviets were of the conventional guerilla fashion - snipers killing leadership, sappers attacking supply lines, etc. It became a whole new era.

[dipstik]

Originally posted by lemon boy

Bill Clinton isn't responsible neither is the shrub: FUCKING OSAMA BIN LADEN AND HIS FUCKING CRAZY MOTHERFUCKING FOLLOWERS ARE FUCKING RESPONSIBLE!

yeah, gotta agree there. Osama and his followers hate Americans and they hate the way we run our country. They could not give less of a shit about who runs the U.S. It has no effect on their hatred toward Americans and the western culture. They have hated Americans their whole lives and have been brainwashed into thinking that killing us is a good idea.

It's just like anti-Semitism in Europe. Anti-Semitism has been traced back multiple centuries. For example Martin Luther in the 1500's, he was one of the most virulent anti-Semites in history, and this is 500 years before Hitler. Hitler didn't just wake up one day and tell everyone to go kill Jews. Anti-Semitism was rampant in most of Europe well before Hitler's was born. Most Germans had many other Europeans had hated Jews their whole lives, so when Hitler came around they loved him. Same thing with Osama. To say that Bush somehow caused 9/11? That's just plain old ignorance.


It also infuriates me when people relate Bush to Hitler. You go read up on the experimentations at Auschwitz and then come tell me that Bush is somehow creating something as atrocious as that. What are these cretins thinking?

[Buster Highmen]

Why do you think Osama hates Americans? Could there be a rationale? As far as the motivation for the timing of 9/11, nobody here is qualified to even venture a guess.

It is nothing like the history of antisemitism.

If there are parallels to be drawn between Nazi propoganda and that of the current administration, need we ostrichize ourselves.

(Yes, that spelling was intended).

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Jetter
It's also worth pointing out that pre-9/11, terrorism was mostly used as a form of politcal expression or communication; it hadn't yet been used much as a form of warfare. the only exception I can think of now was the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. Even the mujihadeen tactics used in Afghanistan against the Soviets were of the conventional guerilla fashion - snipers killing leadership, sappers attacking supply lines, etc. It became a whole new era.

I think the French might disagree. The only distinction is that it finally happened here, in America, the Center of The Universe.

[Greydon Clark]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Why do you think Osama hates Americans?

He hates our freedom. He hates our beautiful women who show a little ankle on the first date. He hates baseball because Barry Bonds in on 'roids. Most importantly hates our snow covered mountains. Saudi Arabia doesn't have shit for snow and Afghanistan has been dry as a bone for the last half dozen years. Nothing but rotten snow, sun cups and depth hoar. Charlie don't surf but rich Arabs ski. The only thing he likes about America is monster truck rallies and tractor pulls as they fatten his pockets and allow him to import pros from Sweden. It's lonely as a motherfucker in those caves, but homicidal fundamentalist need love too.

[The Reverend Floater]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
I think the French might disagree. The only distinction is that it finally happened here, in America, the Center of The Universe.

Werd. Columbia might disagree, too. And perhaps the UK, though there are obviously different stories behind those two.

[The AD]

Originally posted by dipstik
To say that Bush somehow caused 9/11? That's just plain old ignorance

Did someone say that here? I must have missed that post.

[Cornholio]

Originally posted by Jetter
It's also worth pointing out that pre-9/11, terrorism was mostly used as a form of politcal expression or communication; it hadn't yet been used much as a form of warfare.

Bzzzzzzt.

How about our own revolutionary "war", Jetter? Contemporary military theory usurped by novel new tactics: Attacking supply lines, attacking convoys with snipers and hit-and-run ambushes, winning the support of local population against an unwanted occupying force deemed arrogant and over-powerful.

Being an astute politico yourself, I'm sure you are well aware of the British invasion of the South in 1779, and the tactics of American General Nathanial Greene... but if you're not, it's practically an Al Quaida training manual. Look it up.

edit: if you're going to tell me about Baron von Stueben, don't bother. I know that Americans used linear tactics too.

[Cornholio]

Oh, and how about Vietnam? You think the NVA had the best weapons? Training? Funding? Communication?

Nope.

[dipstik]

Originally posted by The AD
Did someone say that here? I must have missed that post.

no not here, not in this thread anyway. i've heard it said a hundred times though.

[lemon boy]

Jetter -

so lemme get this straight:

Osama Bin Laden isn't responsible, Clinton is though because he was the Prez but the congress isn't even though THEY CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS OF GOVERNMENT, Clinton somehow single handedly conspired to cripple us, completely forgetting that people like shrub I and donny rummysfeld were persona non grata with the military (ask somebody about base closings and rummy sometime if you want an earful).

As for nothing being done: you don't seem to have a good memory for the time period so I'll let you in on a little secret: Every time Clinton tried to take military action he was vocally criticised by the rest of the govt. (mostly by conservatives). AND you continue to make excuses for the shrub: if the "writing was on the fucking wall" as you say then why in the 9 months of his presidency didn't he do anything (I would actually argue that in those 9 months the shrub did LESS to fight terrorism than the US was prosecuting at the end of the Clinton admin. Again, I'm not blaming bush (hey, he like Clinton, Reagan, Shrub I and Carter get some "blame" cause they got chips in the game) directly just pointing out that blaming Clinton as an excuse for the shrub is 100% pure - D bullshit.

Oh and 9 months is not a long time to turn things around if there is the political will to do so (which was my point: Pre 911 nobody wanted to be tough on terrorism). Guess how many days it took for troops to start (officially) operating in Afghanistan against the taliban and al-kidder (OBL)?

9-11 through 9-19 - EIGHT DAYS to turn our policies with respect to terrorism FLAT ON THEIR EAR! Why? Political will by the country.

Sorry but trying to throw blame directly on Clinton for this mess is just not right, there is a lot of blame to go around but try to be a little more discerning with where you throw it.

Dipstik - what you've heard a hundred times is a strawman used in debates by conservatives/neo-cons, I've almost never seen someone "blame" the shrub who wasn't making a straw man argument.

[Jumper Bones]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Why do you think Osama hates Americans? Could there be a rationale? As far as the motivation for the timing of 9/11, nobody here is qualified to even venture a guess.

It is nothing like the history of antisemitism.

If there are parallels to be drawn between Nazi propoganda and that of the current administration, need we ostrichize ourselves.

(Yes, that spelling was intended).

this conflict is nothing but a continuation of a long line of conflicts between the East and the West. Our very ideas and free thought threaten their leaders' power base. Pretty much always been that way, with a healthy dose of some good 'ol conquest stuck in there too.

Basically, this is the same fight that's been going on for the last, oh, 5000 years. Long before even the Greeks, Israelites, all that.

[Jumper Bones]

Originally posted by lemon boy
Jetter -

so lemme get this straight:

Osama Bin Laden isn't responsible, Clinton is though because he was the Prez but the congress isn't even though THEY CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS OF GOVERNMENT, Clinton somehow single handedly conspired to cripple us, completely forgetting that people like shrub I and donny rummysfeld were persona non grata with the military (ask somebody about base closings and rummy sometime if you want an earful).

congress has the power of the purse, but the white house writes the budget. And I believe the line-item veto has been eliminated - people can't say "I like what you've got here, but not so much this, so we'll just scratch that out", right?

And yes, Bush Sr. did start up the BRAC proceedings as the cold war ramped down. I'd say rightfully so - as large a military as we had at the time, we didn't need to pay for all of that. Also, Dick Cheney as SecDef fired a big warning shot to gov't contractors that now no weapons program was safe - in that the A-12 fighter, the V-22 Osprey, somewhat the RAH-66 Commanche (finally killed last week), and almost the C-17, were shut down. Basically to squeeze more money out of the cash sponge contractors would come up with "problems" and have cost overruns and program delays during the R&D process. This forced them to change, and now they do it after the prototypes have been built and the gov't has a glimpse of what it can have, which forces the issue. Then they have "trouble" during testing with accomplishing all of the test goals, and need more money. Shit is still the same.
But as far as BRAC goes, yup Bush started that, although it was conducted entirely under Clinton and Les Aspin as the Bottum-Up Review. You could easily say they went too far, closed too much. It will be interesting to see what the '05 round of BRAC suggests.
Also, Bush began the increase-the-global-commitments-while-paring-down-the-forces by going into Somalia; again, Clinton took the lead with that and kept going.

As for nothing being done: you don't seem to have a good memory for the time period so I'll let you in on a little secret: Every time Clinton tried to take military action he was vocally criticised by the rest of the govt. (mostly by conservatives). AND you continue to make excuses for the shrub: if the "writing was on the fucking wall" as you say then why in the 9 months of his presidency didn't he do anything (I would actually argue that in those 9 months the shrub did LESS to fight terrorism than the US was prosecuting at the end of the Clinton admin. Again, I'm not blaming bush (hey, he like Clinton, Reagan, Shrub I and Carter get some "blame" cause they got chips in the game) directly just pointing out that blaming Clinton as an excuse for the shrub is 100% pure - D bullshit.

yup, the GOP was being the pain-in-the-ass that the dems are being today. But, at the same time, like I said, entirely nothing was done after the Kobar Towers bombing, and after the Cole.

oops, I'm out of time. I'll post more later if'n I can.

[lemon boy]

congress has the power of the purse, but the white house writes the budget. And I believe the line-item veto has been eliminated - people can't say "I like what you've got here, but not so much this, so we'll just scratch that out", right?

No, line item veto is a sought after presidential power. The president submits a budget request, each house of congress debates it, tweaks it puts in all their own pork, passes it and then runs through committee on the two different budgets.

I would also urge you to peruse snopes just a tiny teensy bit: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

I know it isn't the greatest source in the world but they do a good job of boiling down the salient points.

The fact remains that while arguably not enough, Bill Clinton did more to fight terrorism than any other president before him.

And yes, I am gonna keep hammerin on this. You simply cannot build a coherent case that Clinton was responsible for 9-11 it is PURE politics, silly politics I might add since he isn't the president. Furthermore, this "blame Clintonitis" is used to deflect criticism of the shrub that simply DOES NOT EXIST: not a single person in this thread has claimed that the shrub is somehow responible for 9-11. Critical as hell of his policies with respect to terrorism pre-9-11 and post-Afghanistan? Hell yeah! Trying to "blame" Clinton is simply finger pointing and does not represent the essential dialouge that must occur, which is finding the flaws not in the actors but in the system so we can refine the way we do things.