Bush and iraq?

[Harnu 0]

<sarcasm> OOooo. It sucked when Clinton was in office. Such a booming economy. Large surplus. Pretty peacful. Peace talks in the middle east. It sucked during his time </sarcasm>

It was GREAT when clinton was in office.

"there are a lot of retirees who are going back to work since their 401(k) got slashed thanx to economic downturn."

My dad alone (who is 48 and still working) has lost well over 40,000 dollars in his 401k alone. But now the stock market seems to be in a bit of a rebound. It's gone up 400 points monday and did very well part of last week too.

Bush better shape things up before he goes out to conquer.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Just something the Duke of Ray said about America saving Europe durring the Worl Wars. Im no expert in WW1, but I think that the French and British were winning that and didnt really need the Americans help, appreciated, but not neccesary. As for WW2...... Want to know who really saved Europe in that? Your lovely friends in red..... The Union Of Soviet Socialist Rebublics under the leadership of Everybodies favourite butcher...... Josef Stalin! Starring Marshal Zhukov. I suggest if you do not believe me, that you go and get a history book on WW2 and look at some hard facts. Throughout the entire war after 1941, the majority of Wehrmacht soldiers, the SS, Panzer Corps and the Luftwaffe were deployed on the Eastern front. Something like 2/3 of all German casaulties were taken on the Eastern front. If Hitler had not invaded, it may have been grimmer. Imagine D-Day if the Germans had twice the amount of defences. Imagine the slaughter of Allied Tank crews if there had been thousands more Panzers availible on the Western Front. The air war... the ground war..... In the ned, the Americans would have probably had to use the bomb on Germany.

[MDRZulu 0]

I've heard Nader wants to legalize pot which is the gateway of all the bigger drugs here. How ironic isn't his party called the green party too? hmmm

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 30 2002,08:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,074)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bill Clinton was a bad president for several reasons. First of all he supported downsizing and cost cutting in the military.

I personally saw a dramatic increase in funding and readiness after Bush got elected.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, Clinton realised that the cold war is over and that in the post cold-war world a different type of military is needed. The WTC attack proved him right. What good did your Abrams tanks and Stealth bombers do?<span id='postcolor'>

That's not fair,The those things were made in the 70s and 80s.

You know what's funny though ? When a democrat says something bad about bush,The republicans get upset and say " Your anti-america or anti-bush or why would you say that in war time."..I don't like republicans because they play the god card too much,and they blame everyone else,and when something good happens it's because they did it.It's not because of democrats helped.also they paid 20 million bucks to see who clinton was sleeping with,and i believe had 20 fbi officers helping them.

Now i don't think democrats are perfect,but i say they are more down to earth with us americans.I mean Soo what if they cheat ? It's their own business.There lots of things democrats have done,but let me get to the iraq thing...

anyways if we go in after iraq again,it would probably be another vietnam.We all know iraq has chemical weapons.If saddam is at his last stand and nothing is left,he's going to use them(chemical weapons).He doesn't care about the world(oil field fires),he doesn't care about the countries by him(iran,kuwait),he doesn't care about his people(using chemical weapons in 2 townsin iraq),he doesn't care about his family(killing his 2 brother in laws).I truly doubt he cares about americans.Soo if he's on his way out,american soldiers banging on his door,Of course the guy is going use chemical weapons,nukes(?).That's going get alot of people killed and that's when the draft starts.

That's when i say Hello,i'm a canuck. .BUt then again,hmm

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 30 2002,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With friends like you, who needs enemies? Overcritical much?<span id='postcolor'>

That is bi-directional. We are risking the lifes of our soldiers because of your national security fuck-ups. I think that gives us a right to voice our opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

We are risking the lifes of our soldiers because of your national security fuck-ups

I think europeans should be the last one saying this.I mean we are in kosvo,bosnia,fought in 2 european wars.Plus were still over there being the guard dog in your backyard.

[MDRZulu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the French and British were winning that and didnt really need the Americans help<span id='postcolor'>

Europe and Russia maybe could have stopped the nazi's but I dont think the Russians had any plans on stopping in Germany and a crushed war torn continent wasn't going to stop them. Im not sure if it was a US general or what but someone suggested that after Germany we just keep going and go for the Soviet Union which might have been a good idea if we won.

[Harnu 0]

Okay. Americans didn't single handedly jump in and win WWII for the Allies. But we did play a big role after we came in. Normandy was really a lot of Americans. We helped take control of west europe with the english. While Mother Russia took the east. But we did end WWII. I believe it was all the USMC in the Pacific. And then we dropped our nukes. Hell yes! Nukes! America, the only one with balls to use em

WWII wasn't all America. But we did do a lot. I'm talking about the Pacific AND Europe.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ July 30 2002,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've heard Nader wants to legalize pot which is the gateway of all the bigger drugs here.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a typical myth very popular in Sweden too (Sweden is very anti-drug compared to the rest of Europe. Pot is a gateway to the bigger drugs as long as it is illegal and in that way linked to other drug sales. The legalizations and decriminalizations of hemp in several European countries have shown that on the contrary it reduces the number of heavy drug users.

Pot can be abused, just as alcohol or any other substance can. If handled properly marijuana is per se less harmful to the body then alcohol. It is also not physically addicitve and so on. But that is another discussion

[Longinius 1]

"I think europeans should be the last one saying this.I mean we are in kosvo,bosnia,fought in 2 european wars.Plus were still over there being the guard dog in your backyard."

Listen here Foxer, Europe is not one nation. What happened on the Balkans has nothing to do with England, Germany, Sweden, Finland or Italy. We also sent our troops there, they also risked their lifes. In many cases, more so than the US soldiers since our peacekeepers went very up close and personal as opposed to shooting things up with airplanes.

The two wars you mention, do you refer to the WORLD wars or some other wars?

Yes, you are still here. Not because you are needed or wanted but because America sees it fit to still have bases in certain nations. Yes, I am thankful for what America has done. But I honestly don't think this military presence is needed in Europe. We are more than willing to let you use our runways and facilities anyway, so why the need for bases?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ July 30 2002,09:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 30 2002,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With friends like you, who needs enemies? Overcritical much?<span id='postcolor'>

That is bi-directional. We are risking the lifes of our soldiers because of your national security fuck-ups. I think that gives us a right to voice our opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

We are risking the lifes of our soldiers because of your national security fuck-ups

I think europeans should be the last one saying this.I mean we are in kosvo,bosnia,fought in 2 european wars.Plus were still over there being the guard dog in your backyard.<span id='postcolor'>

I am sorry to disagree. Sweden has nothing to do with Bosnia and Kosovo. Europe is not one country, if you dídn't know.

As for the world wars you are twisting history there. America only got involved when your national interests were threatend and you were attacked. What were you doing during the years '39-'42? Absolutely nothing first at the end of '41 when you were attacked you got involved, so please spare me the story of how you did it because of Europe.

[USSoldier11B 0]

*sigh* My political science teacher told me this and I believe it:

The president will always be blamed or praised for the status of the economy even though he doesn't really have that much effect over it. As far as the peace thing.....soooo.....it's Bush's fault that terrorists decided to strike during his tenure? It' Bush's fault that the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis with a new rash of suicude bombings? Now all of you want a quick fix. Sorry, that's not how it works. Bush hasn't been in office long enough for any of his policies to have an effect. These things take time. It's NOW that we are feeling the real results of Clinton's term. I think your judgements are deluded. Yes international relations is important, but the president being the LEADER of our country and lloking out for our welfare is more important than pleasing supercilious Europeans.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*sigh* My political science teacher told me this and I believe it:

The president will always be blamed or praised for the status of the economy even though he doesn't really have that much effect over it. As far as the peace thing.....soooo.....it's Bush's fault that terrorists decided to strike during his tenure? It' Bush's fault that the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis with a new rash of suicude bombings? Now all of you want a quick fix. Sorry, that's not how it works. Bush hasn't been in office long enough for any of his policies to have an effect. These things take time. It's NOW that we are feeling the real results of Clinton's term. I think your judgements are deluded. Yes international relations is important, but the president being the LEADER of our country and lloking out for our welfare is more important than pleasing supercilious Europeans.<span id='postcolor'>

Bush hasn't been in office long enough for any of his policies to have an effect.

So the military is good because of clinton ?

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The president will always be blamed or praised for the status of the economy even though he doesn't really have that much effect over it<span id='postcolor'>

It's the same everywhere, for example ice hockey teams. If things go wrong,

you can't fire the whole team, so you will fire the coach.

Someone has to have responsibility, and that is the president.

Bush wanted to be the president (AFAIK) so he must be prepared

for being blamed, as well as being praised (which hasn't happened at least yet )

..

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*sigh* My political science teacher told me this and I believe it:

The president will always be blamed or praised for the status of the economy even though he doesn't really have that much effect over it. As far as the peace thing.....soooo.....it's Bush's fault that terrorists decided to strike during his tenure? It' Bush's fault that the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis with a new rash of suicude bombings?<span id='postcolor'>

No but his lack of mid-east policy just deteriorates the situation. American as an importrant player must have a clear policy. You can't one day say that the pals. are terrorists and that Isral can run them over if they wish and then the next day say that the pals. have a right to their own country and that Israel needs to back off.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes international relations is important, but the president being the LEADER of our country and lloking out for our welfare is more important than pleasing supercilious Europeans.<span id='postcolor'>

You brought up international relations and claimed that Bush was better then Clinton. We responded to that.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So the military is good because of clinton ?<span id='postcolor'>

Uhhh....the military is 30-40% understrength and way underfunded. There was some immediate relief though when Bush rasied the defense budget though. Plus he passed a bill to raise our pay. No...Clinton left us a weakened and low moraled military.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Clinton left us a weakened and low moraled military.<span id='postcolor'>

And how that does show in average American's everyday life?

How does that affect your ability to protect your own nation and territory?

[MDRZulu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">when you were attacked you got involved, so please spare me the story of how you did it because of Europe. <span id='postcolor'>

Roosevelt knew long before we got attacked that we were getting involved the problem was he also knew you cant fight without the support of the people. We cared about Europe or he wouldn't have sent supplies. We also wouldn't have fought the European theatre first if we didnt care about Europe epsecially if you consider the Japanese had a big advantage on us at this point. None of the Americas supported going to war before Pearl Harbor because of the effects of WWI. When Pearl Harbor was bombed Roosevelt had the support of the people and that was the final thing he needed to enter. The support gained can be proven by how many people joined up the day after Pearl Harbor. If you dont have the support you get a Vietnam scenario where you end up losing and it causes all sorts of problems in the homeland.

[foxer 0]

Listen here Foxer, Europe is not one nation.

True,But is america europes watch dog ? It seems like it.

We also sent our troops there, they also risked their lifes. In many cases, more so than the US soldiers since our peacekeepers went very up close and personal as opposed to shooting things up with airplanes.

Why did europe(not all of europe) wait though ? I mean why is it US has to show force and europe follows.Then they bash the US for getting involved.When they could have sent atleast some european nations to do the dirty deed,but didn't and waits for the US to do something then if something goes wrong they also bash the US.

I only said brought up ww1 and 2 was because of ,We are risking the lifes of our soldiers because of your national security fuck-ups.

I am sorry to disagree. Sweden has nothing to do with Bosnia and Kosovo. Europe is not one country, if you dídn't know.

No they are not one country.They are lots of countries,Soo why doesn't any of those countries have the balls to do something about those wars ? Why wait until america is there?

As for the world wars you are twisting history there. America only got involved when your national interests were threatend and you were attacked. What were you doing during the years '39-'42? Absolutely nothing first at the end of '41 when you were attacked you got involved, so please spare me the story of how you did it because of Europe.

Soo america didn't risk troops ? Didn't have troops killed ? Because of ww1 and ww2 ? Which europe sat there ,like always until a bigger conflict happen.

I'm not trying bash you europeans(which you are   ).But I don't like the bs comments about the US,I mean bash bush until you die,but don't be  upset because your finally risking your troops in a american war(haven't heard that in a long time),When US were risking their soldiers in europe wars.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No but his lack of mid-east policy just deteriorates the situation. American as an importrant player must have a clear policy. You can't one day say that the pals. are terrorists and that Isral can run them over if they wish and then the next day say that the pals. have a right to their own country and that Israel needs to back off.

<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree. There are plenty of Muslim theoracies in which the Palestinian people can live. As it is, they thrive off of providing services for Israel and would be destitute without them. Yes there are radical Israelis, but Israel allows muslims to live in thier country, do you think it would be the same if it were Palestine running the show? No, every last Jew would be driven out. There is only one Jewish home nation, but plenty of muslim ones.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 30 2002,08:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, on the Europeans being very left: I listened to Ralph Nader when he gave a lecture in Stockholm a couple of months ago. His agenda and views are very very similar to the ones of an average European social democratic party. Just as a reference, so that you can compare. That is basically how our moderate left wing is.<span id='postcolor'>

that asshole lost my respect when he sent a letter to NBA commission to overthrow Game 6 of western conference finals!

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,09:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So the military is good because of clinton ?<span id='postcolor'>

Uhhh....the military is 30-40% understrength and way underfunded. There was some immediate relief though when Bush rasied the defense budget though. Plus he passed a bill to raise our pay. No...Clinton left us a weakened and low moraled military.<span id='postcolor'>

It looks to me like the military is doing a good job in afghanistan.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the world wars you are twisting history there. America only got involved when your national interests were threatend and you were attacked. What were you doing during the years '39-'42? Absolutely nothing first at the end of '41 when you were attacked you got involved, so please spare me the story of how you did it because of Europe. <span id='postcolor'>

According to all my history classes about WWII, from a little after the war started the U.S. supplied the Allies with food and I belive some equipment. Small stuff like radios and such.

[Longinius 1]

"Why did europe(not all of europe) wait though ? I mean why is it US has to show force and europe follows.Then they bash the US for getting involved.When they could have sent atleast some european nations to do the dirty deed,but didn't and waits for the US to do something then if something goes wrong they also bash the US."

We didn't wait. Our peacekeepers were there asap. I think Denoir can give you better details on this since he was there himself. The problem is not that European nations did not comitt, the problem is that the UN restricted the efforts that could be made.

"Soo america didn't risk troops ? Didn't have troops killed ? Because of ww1 and ww2 ? Which europe sat there ,like always until a bigger conflict happen."

Europe sat there? Foxer, pardon me for asking, but are you stupid? Europe was engulfed in the war, nowhere did anyone do any sitting. People were to busy trying to survive in a war. The war was HERE, in Europe, you can't really get much more envolved than that.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ July 30 2002,09:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Soo america didn't risk troops ? Didn't have troops killed ? Because of ww1 and ww2 ? Which europe sat there ,like always until a bigger conflict happen."

Europe sat there? Foxer, pardon me for asking, but are you stupid? Europe was engulfed in the war, nowhere did anyone do any sitting. People were to busy trying to survive in a war. The war was HERE, in Europe, you can't really get much more envolved than that.<span id='postcolor'>

Europe sat there?

wasn't poland invaded ? and most of europe didn't do anything ? i could be wrong ..

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,09:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do you think it would be the same if it were Palestine running the show? No, every last Jew would be driven out. There is only one Jewish home nation, but plenty of muslim ones.<span id='postcolor'>

well, wouldn't you be mad if you weer driven out from your land? Palestinians were pushed out of their land and that's why they are mad at Israel.

and as you said, policies's affect takes time to show. so don't claim that military strength of current US military is tahnks to IMEEDIATE increase. it's thanx to CLINTON!