usafskins Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I prefer the latter. Funny how every military action we took during that impeached presidents term, not one protest. Their view of the military was one that did humanitarian and peace keeping duties. Using the military for self-defense is blasphemy. "Books not bombs, No blood for oil, and Tax cuts for the rich" are words that get me reaching for my gun. Speaking of tax cuts for the rich, the D-Cats definition is the top 20%. Guess what if you make more than 83K combined you are rich, according to the Hillary and he ilk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I wasn't here on Extremeskins at the time, but If I were, I would have been speaking out against Clinton's actions at the time as well... But you point is correct... I honestly belive that MANY (not all), but many people adjust what they believe in based on the view of their party. If you are a war protestor, then you should have been protesting Clinton's actions too... you shouldn't give him a free ride just because he's of your party... And on the flip side, what about all those GOPers who were so against Clinton's actions... war is ok if your guy is in charge... I'm against peacekeeping actions.. I view the current situation as such because I don't think a link between Saddam and Bin Laden has been proven to us, however, I'm willing to accept that the govenment may not be able to prove it to us until a later date because of national security or protection of human assets... Just my opinion.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Funny how the RWW now support all military action but when it was President Clinton in charge they were against it! Demoncats = Cleverness (if you're in Junior High) ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 You're exactly right JackC. If Gore were fighting the same war, the Republicans would be screaming for his head and the Democrats would be all for it. Nobody can think for themselves, they all follow their party's dogma like sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 While there were some who opposed Clinton for being Clinton. MOst had a problem with the timing and the lack of total commitment. My complaint was that he didnt do enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usafskins Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 I am not a Republican by any means. I am a conservative minded independent. That being said, I agree that both camps would cry about certain things just because the other guy is in charge. But remember; alot of terrorist activity went unpunished while the impeached president did nothing. Khobar towers, bombing of USS Cole, and WTC bombing. Just to show I am an equal basher, Pres Reagan did not do anything after the bombing in Beirut, which I believe embolded the Islamo facists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Funny how the RWW now support all military action but when it was President Clinton in charge they were against it! Demoncats = Cleverness (if you're in Junior High) ! Though I never was fully opposed to dealing with Kosvo and Bosnia, I do understand why the GOP and other conservatives did not feel the action was warranted by Clinton (we were right to stop the ethnic cleansing). To say it was just partisan politics is a little superficial. I am sure there was some partison politics at play, but we again went and cleaned up another mess in Europe. Not France or Germany, even though it was in their own backyards. This was one reason people were against it. No national security issues there, unlike potential spread of WMD by Saddam. Clinton dodged the draft by splitting to England. Many military folks thought it odd (actually were quite pissed) that a draft dodger would use military force after such strong opposition against it. Clinton's military actions did seem to coincide with his personal problems. I believe this war is just. I believe we (our current administration) are doing what we believe we need to do to ensure our way of life, our freedoms and those of our children, as well as freeing the Iraqis from a tyrannical (sp) regime. If we were just going in there to pick a fight without any just cause I would be with those in opposition. I believe that Saddam has WMD. He had them prior to 1998 and I am sure he did not just get rid of them to be a nice guy. You can paint all the parallels you want between the GOP's opposition for Clinton's actions and the DNC's oppostion for Bush's actions. If you would, please show me where the GOP leaders continued to speak out against Clinton and our involvement overseas once troops were dispatched. I'm not going to say it did not happen, but I would wager it was not near as prevalent, especially less than 2 weeks into the campaign. That said, I am tired of the US being the world's policemen and women. I had a long debate with a German citizen the other day (makes all you left wingers here look like strict contructionalists) and he was fussing about how we don't pay our UN dues on time. I told him we could just pull out of the UN and let them handle the bad people, which of course they won't do as evidenced by their 12 years of doing nothing when Saddam showed his butt by kicking out inspectors. I'm sure we will continue to be the world's police force. We (our troops) will be called upon at another time do defend the rights, or free a nation, or police an area, without any finanacial or military support from other nations in the UN. I'm tired of footing the bill, and tired of seeing our national sovreignty turned over to other nations. We need to take care of our own affairs. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 I'm a left centrist, and I was very much opposed to Clinton's war in Kosovo. The Milosevic-loyal Serbs were b@stards, but the KLA "freedom fighters" were a bunch of murderous thugs as well. This was evidenced by their separatist aggression in Macedonia shortly after Kosovo. And who trained them? NPRI, a bunch of retired military experts/mercenaries based in Northern VA who don't have to play by the rules that our government does ... though the government doesn't seem to stop them. The point is that their are always consequences to your actions, and for quite some time our international/military policy has been one of expediency and the ends justifying the means ... the eventual consequences be damned. First we support the Shah as our strongman in the Middles East. Then, after he wipes out the democratic opposition in Iran, he was overthrown by Muslim radicals. Oops! Next, we turn to Saddam, who we once opposed with the Shah. We sell him weapons and dual-use materials for weapons programs. He gasses his people with nary a peep from our government. But, when he decides to invade Kuwait, a polygamist monarchy, he's gone too far. Oops! In a separate conflict, we give arms and training to Muslim radicals to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. We turn our backs once the job is done, and the country becomes a wasteland ruled by warlords. People hate the warlords so much that the our former allies, the Muslim radicals, take over. Not liking us really, they use Afghanistan to train an army of terrorists, who then attack us all over the globe. Oops! So, we go back to Afghanistan, kick some Taliban *** and head home. Now Afghanistan, outside of Kabul, is once again a wasteland ruled by warlords who rob and rape at will. Hmm ... So now it's absolutely imperative that we go to Iraq to take out the Evil Dictator with WMD ... ... that used to be our trusted ally with WMD ... after he was our and the Shah's enemy ... because he supposedly has been aiding and abetting the Muslim radicals ... ... who were our allies in Afghanistan Yeah, i get it ... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 The far-right wing isn't in support of this war at all. What are you guys talking about? The far-right wants us to pack up all troops, setup electrified borders, and deal with the rest of the world as little as possible. And while there are more people protesting this war, the people behind the protests were doing the same stuff when Clinton was in office. The socialists aren't fans of Clinton. As Michael Moore put it, "Bill Clinton was the best Republican President ever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Demoncats? So what should the response be, Repiglicans? Repugnantcans? There's some very bright people and some very well-informed people on this forum (not always the same people ). Lets do better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by DaFunky1 Though I never was fully opposed to dealing with Kosvo and Bosnia, I do understand why the GOP and other conservatives did not feel the action was warranted by Clinton (we were right to stop the ethnic cleansing). To say it was just partisan politics is a little superficial. I am sure there was some partison politics at play, but we again went and cleaned up another mess in Europe. Not France or Germany, even though it was in their own backyards. This was one reason people were against it. No national security issues there, unlike potential spread of WMD by Saddam. Clinton dodged the draft by splitting to England. Many military folks thought it odd (actually were quite pissed) that a draft dodger would use military force after such strong opposition against it. Clinton's military actions did seem to coincide with his personal problems. Peace Wow nice revisionism. The Clinton action was done with the support of NATO. I love how you seem to suggest that because you think Clinton was a draft dodger(please prove it) that he some how didn't deserve the power given to him by the American people. This is exactly what I'm trying to point out to you. Bush was AWOL from a post his rich Daddy got him. I would argue that was worse. Even if I found quotes from GOP members bashing Clinton about the war in Europe while troops were in action, you would just make some excuse for them! A pure waste of time IHMO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsThug Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Don't be so quick to rag on democrats -- there are many lying in military graveyards, far from home, who gave their lives for our country in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Nam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Hold the phone. Clinton got an educational deferment, he was not a ‘draft dodger’ and ‘splitting to England’ had nothing to do with it. He did his best to avoid military service, including an ROTC enrollment he did not fulfill, but his efforts were legal. He eventually did enter the draft but his number was high enough he was never called. Bush also went to college, then entered the Air National Guard to avoid the war. There’s no evidence his daddy got him preferential treatment. Dubya had no more intention of getting shot at then did Bill Clinton, but he was shrewd enough to pick a specialty and a state – pilot, in Texas – where there was no wait list for the National Guard. His efforts also were legal, although there is the mysterious gap in his service record and the refusal to undergo a physical after drug tests became mandatory. Neither man’s military service is exemplary. I suppose you could say they’ve each compiled quite a record of public service in the political arena. But if you want to make experience under fire a prerequisite for ordering military force maybe John McCain is your man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usafskins Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 I like the name Repulicrats or Demikans. It doesnt matter both parties have pushed their agendas away from their traditional messages. The Republican party today is the Demoncat party 30 yrs ago. Very socially oriented and the Dem party today is pretty much socialist. They scream what about the UN, world opinion, "click" (loading up my glock), blah,blah. Democrats 30yrs ago were unlike the toads running the party today, patriotic and used the word god quite frequently. I dont believe we had any business in Kosovo, at least not for the reasons given, ethnic cleansing was going on on both sides,except 1 side was Christian and the other was Muslim and the UN of course sided with the Muslims. Why didnt the impeached guy intervene in Africa during the massive slaughtering of innocent life? We need to close the borders too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Wow nice revisionism. The Clinton action was done with the support of NATO. I love how you seem to suggest that because you think Clinton was a draft dodger(please prove it) that he some how didn't deserve the power given to him by the American people. This is exactly what I'm trying to point out to you. Bush was AWOL from a post his rich Daddy got him. I would argue that was worse. Even if I found quotes from GOP members bashing Clinton about the war in Europe while troops were in action, you would just make some excuse for them! A pure waste of time IHMO! From what you say Jack about Clinton not being a draft dodger may be accurate. I guess most folks opposed to the war stayed in this country and did not participate in anti-war/anti-US protests overseas. You tell me, if he wasn't a draft dodger, why he was so despised by vietnam vets and military under his command? I never said anything about Bush's service, nor did I make a comparison between the two. I could care less either way. If Bush or any other GOP member had done the same things Clinton did I would call them a draft dodger. Clinton supposedly sent troops over as a peace keeping force, not to fight or liberate the Kosovars, nor were we to be an occupying force. Evidently he lied about that as well. As I said, this was a problem in Europe's backyard and those same wusses who wouldn't stand with us in our dealings with Iraq are the same ones who did nothing about Milosevic without the US leading the way. Which NATO country was under attack from another country that gave us the right to step in and defend them? Where was the UN approval for the attacks on Milosovic? there was none. NATO violated international law during that campaign... International law clearly states that one country can attack another one only when it is itself under attack, about to be attacked, or when the U.N. Security Council grants permission... none of those held true for Clinton's/NATOs actions. People's arguments about the US breaking international law in dealing with Iraq can be used here against Clinton as well. As I said it was a European problem not ours. Another instance where we are playing policeman. Honestly I am open to true discourse. I have not called you a moron, idiot, leftist (I don't think I have :laugh: ), or any number of other labels others would choose to use (at least not in this discussion). I'll tell you if I think you are wrong. I spent over an hour discussing the war with a native born German last week, and I did not resort to ethnic slurs or the Hitler card. We discussed and I walked away better understanding his position, even though his liberal stances makes you look like Pat Buchannon (ok I resorted to name calling there. Lastly show me where I have made excuses for our leaders, especially those on the right? I don't believe I would, as I normally don't. If any of my leaders were to do a boneheaded thing I would definitely speak out against it. Sometimes it takes a few years for the dust to settle and the truth to come out. When I am wrong I am a man and admit it. Most won't... they will just change the subject or resort to name calling. Show me where I am wrong. I by no means am a history buff, nor do claim to be an expert on international affairs or law. You said in your first post about this: "Funny how the RWW now support all military action but when it was President Clinton in charge they were against it!" I listed reasons I have heard why this was. I never said all the reasons were justified. I do believe Clinton studied in England to avoid the draft. I do know he was in anti-war protests. I do know he was hated by many Vietnam vets. Maybe it was all circumstantial evidence? Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.