<strong>Nah, Teddy R. would have shut M$ down.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We all would hope that would happen.
[quote]Originally posted by agent302:
<strong>Interestingly enough, while TR was known as the "Trust Buster", Taft actually broke up more trusts. (just thought I'd share that random tidbit of information)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very True.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far." -TR
The best TR quote
"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." -TR
<strong>There's a difference between blaming America and blaming an American.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you.
I'm still scratching my head and trying to figure out how blaming "America" as a whole for all of the worlds ills is somehow on par with blaming a specific individual for a specific failing with a specific list of reasons.
But I suppose you have to be a "rational" member of the Left to understand that logic.
And Mogadishu was a terrorist insurgency by Bin Laden's group? I think not. Somalia was more a case of the U.S. overextending itself and intervening in a local Civil War. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bin Laden or Middle Eastern terrorists.
Actually, there's evidence that much of the militia forces were trained by Bin Laden, specifically in urban warfare and shooting down helicopters with RPG's. I forgot where I read this. I'll look for it; I think it was in a British paper. Anyway, it was a test in US resolve. Clinton failed for 8 years in any form of resolve. Bush, probably because of poll numbers and a search for re-election, but also perhaps he believes in it, is now going after terrorism. You might call it simple-minded, but he has the resolve.
And remember, the original mission in Somalia was to end the famine...it was only after the Marines pulled out and Adid started killing UN soldiers that mission changed to going after Adid.
And Mogadishu was a terrorist insurgency by Bin Laden's group? I think not. Somalia was more a case of the U.S. overextending itself and intervening in a local Civil War. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bin Laden or Middle Eastern terrorists.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bin Laden claimed reponsibility for Mogadishu. Why else would Sudan even think we'd be interested in him in 1994?
Bin Laden claimed reponsibility for Mogadishu. Why else would Sudan even think we'd be interested in him in 1994?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's difficult to think of someone claiming responsibility for the acts in Mogadishu. It's not like someone bombed a building. The events in Mogadishu resulted from a fire fight between Army Rangers and Somali rebels. In verges more on an act of war than an act of terrorism, and that's the point I was trying to make. It's inherently different than the attacks on the Cole and the WTC.
[quote]According to the Indictment, several of these fatwahs called for attacks on American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. The Indictment also alleges that American troops in Somalia were indeed attacked and killed by persons who received training from al Qaeda members or those trained by al Qaeda.<hr></blockquote>
But it wasn't until 1998. I'm not sure when they linked bin Laden to Somalia - I don't think it was until a few years after it happened, maybe the mid-1990s. I believe the first act of terrorism they have linked to bin Laden was the first WTC bombing, back in 1993, and that was indirect, and bin Laden was just one of many indirect links.
But he was a known militant after the US made the deal with Saudi Arabia in 1990 to go there after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and bin Laden had opposed the US being there. He slowly became seen as more and more of an important terrorist figure after that, culminating in the late 1990s with the Embassy bombings and then the Cole.
Somalia was more a case of the U.S. overextending itself and intervening in a local Civil War.
So this is the direction the historical revisionists are going to move in?
America was yet again meddling in a place it shouldn't have been?<hr></blockquote>
As far as this goes Agent302 has it right. The mission originally was about famine relief but it changed. And that was a mistake.
We went over there to save lives. We bailed after a firefight in which thousands of Somalis died. Yes, they were fighting for a very bad man but clearly killing Somalis wasn't what we went over there to do. It doesn't matter if you are left, right or center it's hard not to see this as one big cock-up.
As far as this goes Agent302 has it right. The mission originally was about famine relief but it changed. And that was a mistake.
We went over there to save lives. We bailed after a firefight in which thousands of Somalis died. Yes, they were fighting for a very bad man but clearly killing Somalis wasn't what we went over there to do. It doesn't matter if you are left, right or center it's hard not to see this as one big cock-up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the first mission was to restore the supply line of food to the starving masses. Once that was accomplished, the Marines pulled out and let the UN take over.
The second mission was to capture Adid once he started to target UN and American soldiers. That mission ended when the US pulled out after the firefight which left 18 US soldiers and 500-1000 Somalies dead.
<strong>As for Clinton, he's the reason parents had to explain what a blowjob was to 7 year old children. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the media is the reason parents had to explain that to children. In fact, parents are the fact that they had to explain that to their children.
Whatever Clinton did with Ms. Lewinskey had nothing to do with what kind of President he was. It made him a bad husband, not a bad President. IMO, this should have stayed out of the media altogether - it was part of his private life which shouldn't be any of our business.
Why do I say blame the media and the parents? JFK had secret servicemen bring prostitutes to the white house, FDR (I believe, it was him... can't remember who at the moment) lived with his mistress while his wife lived with her lesbian lover. There was also the President (again, can't remember who) who was a cross dresser. Yet no one had to go explaining to their 7 year old what a prostitute was, what a lesbian was, why the president didn't live with his wife, or why some men dress up in women's clothing. As none of this had anything to do with the job of President, it was kept out of the media. There, media's fault.
Even if you think that the public has a right to know what's going on in the President's personal life, it is still up to the parents to keep their 7 year old kids from watching the news or reading the newspaper about such matters they would consider inappropriate. There, parent's fault.
Since when is it okay for a boss to prey on young interns for sex? What planet is there where that's okay? How can a boss be a good boss if he's trying to get some from the interns all the time? Then get them great jobs afterward. What about the girls that wouldn't drop to their knees and suck his cock? What kind of job recommendations did they get? Good ones? I doubt it.
So please don't tell me it has nothing to do with what kind of president he was. Clinton created an environment where sex=promotion/recommendations. That makes him a bad boss and thus a bad president.
It's so fukcing simple I can't understand why people can't see it.
Also when he lied under oath that made him a bad president and then there was that time as president he went on TeeVee and lied to all of us to our faces point blank. That make him a bad president.
<strong>Since when is it okay for a boss to prey on young interns for sex? What planet is there where that's okay? How can a boss be a good boss if he's trying to get some from the interns all the time? Then get them great jobs afterward. What about the girls that wouldn't drop to their knees and suck his cock? What kind of job recommendations did they get? Good ones? I doubt it.
So please don't tell me it has nothing to do with what kind of president he was. Clinton created an environment where sex=promotion/recommendations. That makes him a bad boss and thus a bad president.
It's so fukcing simple I can't understand why people can't see it.
Also when he lied under oath that made him a bad president and then there was that time as president he went on TeeVee and lied to all of us to our faces point blank. That make him a bad president.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any bad policies though? You still haven't named any. And don't relieve Monica Lewinsky of all blame; she was a willing participant.
Any bad policies though? You still haven't named any. And don't relieve Monica Lewinsky of all blame; she was a willing participant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The bad policy being if you suck Bills cock you get a good job. That's a bad way to run an office, The White House, and no way to lead the office, the entire country. Also consider that he opened the US up to a sexual harrasment lawsuit. It's such ****ing poor judgement on his part.
[quote]Also when he lied under oath that made him a bad president and then there was that time as president he went on TeeVee and lied to all of us to our faces point blank. That make him a bad president. <hr></blockquote>
Wow. If you really think that lying to the American people makes you a bad President, then there hasn't been a good President.
Don't think that Dubya is immune to this either. After all, he went on 'teevee', as you put it, and made a lot of campaign promises that he has broken. So he must be a bad President, right?
Comments
<strong>Nah, Teddy R. would have shut M$ down.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We all would hope that would happen.
[quote]Originally posted by agent302:
<strong>Interestingly enough, while TR was known as the "Trust Buster", Taft actually broke up more trusts. (just thought I'd share that random tidbit of information)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Very True.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far." -TR
The best TR quote
"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." -TR
hehe, oh this is some good stuff.
<strong>There's a difference between blaming America and blaming an American.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you.
I'm still scratching my head and trying to figure out how blaming "America" as a whole for all of the worlds ills is somehow on par with blaming a specific individual for a specific failing with a specific list of reasons.
But I suppose you have to be a "rational" member of the Left to understand that logic.
<strong>
It was after Mogadishu.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And Mogadishu was a terrorist insurgency by Bin Laden's group? I think not. Somalia was more a case of the U.S. overextending itself and intervening in a local Civil War. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bin Laden or Middle Eastern terrorists.
So this is the direction the historical revisionists are going to move in?
America was yet again meddling in a place it shouldn't have been?
And remember, the original mission in Somalia was to end the famine...it was only after the Marines pulled out and Adid started killing UN soldiers that mission changed to going after Adid.
<strong>
And Mogadishu was a terrorist insurgency by Bin Laden's group? I think not. Somalia was more a case of the U.S. overextending itself and intervening in a local Civil War. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bin Laden or Middle Eastern terrorists.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bin Laden claimed reponsibility for Mogadishu. Why else would Sudan even think we'd be interested in him in 1994?
<strong>
Bin Laden claimed reponsibility for Mogadishu. Why else would Sudan even think we'd be interested in him in 1994?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's difficult to think of someone claiming responsibility for the acts in Mogadishu. It's not like someone bombed a building. The events in Mogadishu resulted from a fire fight between Army Rangers and Somali rebels. In verges more on an act of war than an act of terrorism, and that's the point I was trying to make. It's inherently different than the attacks on the Cole and the WTC.
[quote]According to the Indictment, several of these fatwahs called for attacks on American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. The Indictment also alleges that American troops in Somalia were indeed attacked and killed by persons who received training from al Qaeda members or those trained by al Qaeda.<hr></blockquote>
But it wasn't until 1998. I'm not sure when they linked bin Laden to Somalia - I don't think it was until a few years after it happened, maybe the mid-1990s. I believe the first act of terrorism they have linked to bin Laden was the first WTC bombing, back in 1993, and that was indirect, and bin Laden was just one of many indirect links.
But he was a known militant after the US made the deal with Saudi Arabia in 1990 to go there after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and bin Laden had opposed the US being there. He slowly became seen as more and more of an important terrorist figure after that, culminating in the late 1990s with the Embassy bombings and then the Cole.
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/"; target="_blank">Here's where I get most of my info about him.</a>
Somalia was more a case of the U.S. overextending itself and intervening in a local Civil War.
So this is the direction the historical revisionists are going to move in?
America was yet again meddling in a place it shouldn't have been?<hr></blockquote>
As far as this goes Agent302 has it right. The mission originally was about famine relief but it changed. And that was a mistake.
We went over there to save lives. We bailed after a firefight in which thousands of Somalis died. Yes, they were fighting for a very bad man but clearly killing Somalis wasn't what we went over there to do. It doesn't matter if you are left, right or center it's hard not to see this as one big cock-up.
<strong>
As far as this goes Agent302 has it right. The mission originally was about famine relief but it changed. And that was a mistake.
We went over there to save lives. We bailed after a firefight in which thousands of Somalis died. Yes, they were fighting for a very bad man but clearly killing Somalis wasn't what we went over there to do. It doesn't matter if you are left, right or center it's hard not to see this as one big cock-up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you
It's only a screw-up if you don't carry out your mission. The mission was to save lives, we pulled out before that mission was accomplished.
The second mission was to capture Adid once he started to target UN and American soldiers. That mission ended when the US pulled out after the firefight which left 18 US soldiers and 500-1000 Somalies dead.
<strong>As for Clinton, he's the reason parents had to explain what a blowjob was to 7 year old children. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the media is the reason parents had to explain that to children. In fact, parents are the fact that they had to explain that to their children.
Whatever Clinton did with Ms. Lewinskey had nothing to do with what kind of President he was. It made him a bad husband, not a bad President. IMO, this should have stayed out of the media altogether - it was part of his private life which shouldn't be any of our business.
Why do I say blame the media and the parents? JFK had secret servicemen bring prostitutes to the white house, FDR (I believe, it was him... can't remember who at the moment) lived with his mistress while his wife lived with her lesbian lover. There was also the President (again, can't remember who) who was a cross dresser. Yet no one had to go explaining to their 7 year old what a prostitute was, what a lesbian was, why the president didn't live with his wife, or why some men dress up in women's clothing. As none of this had anything to do with the job of President, it was kept out of the media. There, media's fault.
Even if you think that the public has a right to know what's going on in the President's personal life, it is still up to the parents to keep their 7 year old kids from watching the news or reading the newspaper about such matters they would consider inappropriate. There, parent's fault.
So please don't tell me it has nothing to do with what kind of president he was. Clinton created an environment where sex=promotion/recommendations. That makes him a bad boss and thus a bad president.
It's so fukcing simple I can't understand why people can't see it.
Also when he lied under oath that made him a bad president and then there was that time as president he went on TeeVee and lied to all of us to our faces point blank. That make him a bad president.
<strong>Since when is it okay for a boss to prey on young interns for sex? What planet is there where that's okay? How can a boss be a good boss if he's trying to get some from the interns all the time? Then get them great jobs afterward. What about the girls that wouldn't drop to their knees and suck his cock? What kind of job recommendations did they get? Good ones? I doubt it.
So please don't tell me it has nothing to do with what kind of president he was. Clinton created an environment where sex=promotion/recommendations. That makes him a bad boss and thus a bad president.
It's so fukcing simple I can't understand why people can't see it.
Also when he lied under oath that made him a bad president and then there was that time as president he went on TeeVee and lied to all of us to our faces point blank. That make him a bad president.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any bad policies though? You still haven't named any. And don't relieve Monica Lewinsky of all blame; she was a willing participant.
<strong>
Any bad policies though? You still haven't named any. And don't relieve Monica Lewinsky of all blame; she was a willing participant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The bad policy being if you suck Bills cock you get a good job. That's a bad way to run an office, The White House, and no way to lead the office, the entire country. Also consider that he opened the US up to a sexual harrasment lawsuit. It's such ****ing poor judgement on his part.
****! Why is that so hard to understand?
Monica Lewinsky is not president.
Wow. If you really think that lying to the American people makes you a bad President, then there hasn't been a good President.
Don't think that Dubya is immune to this either. After all, he went on 'teevee', as you put it, and made a lot of campaign promises that he has broken. So he must be a bad President, right?
Take some xanax or something.
<strong>Scott, you've turned into a moron.
Take some xanax or something.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why because I pointed out what exactly is wrong with Bill Clinton using his interns for sex. Where did I go wrong?