| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| A What if senario | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 17 2003, 08:13 PM (463 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 17 2003, 10:56 PM Post #16 |
|
Admiral
|
I wasn't. But now that you mentioned it, have you read the book? If not, then your comments about it are premature don't you think?
Your assumption that I find no faults with Bill Clinton is not correct. I have certainly praised him about a number of things which may have given you that impression, but I freely admit he made some mistakes. And he did get my scorn regarding his military actions that were obviously nothing more than attempts to distract from his legal problems. But how does this justify Bush's actions? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 17 2003, 11:06 PM Post #17 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
It doesn't, but I don't remember you criticizing Bill Clinton on anything. Clinton's actions not withstanding, I still believe that President Bush was justified in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm interested to find out more details about the Iraq/al Queda connection (aside from the recent memo, and the already-documented training base at Salman Pak). I'm shutting down. Another strong wave of t-storms is heading through this area, and I'd rather not be at the keyboard in case of another blackout. While I trust my UPS to keep my machines running, too many spikes will damage them, too. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 17 2003, 11:11 PM Post #18 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I beg to differ in this case…
The beginning... First off Gabe is implying that those here at this site who have posted comments that disagree with aspects of the current Republican Administration (the war, Bush himself and other Anti-American sentiments…whatever the later is supposed to mean) hail from the left side of the political spectrum. It is implied because he proposes a fictional case where he thinks that by changing the political orientation of the President the opposite will be true…he is already assuming the answer before he asked the question at the end of his post.
The ending... Then Gabe wraps up his fictional scenario by calling liberals snitty. How would you react if someone called you snitty? Snitty is a petty comment…used when one at the very least has a disagreeing predisposition against the individual or group that they labeled as snitty. I am not a liberal, but the term is more and more used interchangeably with Democrat.
Good for you. I do so quite often myself. But really, why should I give anyone the time of day when they are obviously already so closed-minded that they would never legitimately consider my side of the situation? This post is exclusionary and put me on the offensive the second I read it. If Gabe did not want to elicit that type of response, then he should have posted a broader question. One that doesn’t automatically imply, label or insinuate before and while he asks the questions. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 18 2003, 12:14 AM Post #19 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I disagree - he could be (I say could be because you can read it the way you have 24, but I didn’t) just making a point period. Whether the situation was 180 degrees and the real life president was a demarcate, Gabe may not have asked the question at all, but the question would still be a valid talking point. I to some times wonder how things would be different if we had a democratic president instead of a republican one, and if this would change some of the criticism that is voiced and as I have stated before, I am of no political leaning what so ever (so can not be attacking the opposing teem as I don’t have one). Gabe; As for the point it’s self, I believe that the criticism would be on the same level if the situation was reversed, but the points would be different. As always I believe politics has and does get in the way of making policies. The republicans do it to the demarcates the demarcates do it to the republicans, countries do it between each other. So no I do not believe things would be much different in the amount of volume, just in what we would be hearing. nztrekkie:
where have you been the last year and a half, while some may be “pro invasion” and voiced their opinions, there have been just as many who disagree and have equally voiced their onions, that’s why I come here in the first place to read the debates (there wouldn’t be debates if every one was “pro-invasion” would there?), If you lifted your head once and a while you would see this. How arrogant that one small voice can be. Also how can you intelligently equate that all pro-invasion people are only “yes men”? You can believe what you want to your hearts content, but how do you trick your self into believing that people with different view points must be “yes men” period. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 18 2003, 12:52 AM Post #20 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
A simple answer if there ever was one. If one is a conservative/Republican then, to use the term coined by Rush Limbaugh's fans, one is therefore a dittohead (just agrees with the Republican Party line) and one's sole purpose to promote, promulgate, extrapolate, reiterate everything President Bush says! (Oy, my sarcasm chip is starting to overheat. If I'm not careful folks are going to start lining up kick my@$$
)
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 18 2003, 05:07 AM Post #21 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
NZ I do not fit the mould you suggested. I personally believe that irrespective of who was elected Prez in 2000, the results would have been largely the same as a consequence of 911. The american people were very angry and wanted revenge after that appalling terrorist attack and wanted revenge and to spill blood (and lots off it) only it was not a country that attacked and killed a lot of people (and not all americans - some victims were also islamic), it was a private army of disenfranchised and fanatical people from all over the would (including the UK, USA and Australia and others too) who had taken extreme issue with the developed (western) world). So who do you send your military out to destroy ? Would Afganistan had been invaded - strong probably - the world was outraged at the Taliban and they were openly associated with the al-Queda. Would Iraq had been invaded - maybe - but probably later with the support of the UN and a larger coallision. The hawks would have found a way to lobby the congress and the whitehouse and american presidents are popularists and driven mostly what they percieve to be what's in their interests of being re-elected. (Important to prove to the world that the USA is still the alpha - nation.) Suddenly (after 911) the majority of americans realised that they had a national problem with how the world persieves them and their actions. Have they worked out what to do to fix their problem ? (No - not yet.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 18 2003, 06:56 AM Post #22 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
When I read your first comment on the subject, I was so shocked by the appearance of inconsistency that I nearly stopped to reply then. Glad I didn't - Bill saved me some time. While you may have these opinions, I certainly haven't seen them expressed. I honestly thought that you thought Bill Clinton was the greatest president who ever lived or ever will live. I based my belief on what I read that you said. I stand corrected. How does it affect Bush's actions? Not a bit, but my impression of how you view Bill Clinton does affect how affect how I view your posts about George Bush. BTW, "well-documented" has various meanings. I agree that there are a number of lists of Bush "lies". There's a number of lists of "lies" from all the recent presidents, Democratic and Republican. The fact that there are "lots of lists" doesn't mean their correct lists - whether they be from Republican or Democratic presidents. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 18 2003, 02:33 PM Post #23 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I disagree. I do not believe that a Gore administration would have reacted the same way the Bush Administration reacted. I'm extrapolating this based on Al Gore's personality and the previous Clinton Administration's handling of the USS Cole bombing, the African embassy bombings, and the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu, Somalia. I think a Gore Administration would have spent more time studying the situation, and discussing it with the UN. Afghanistan would most likely STILL be under Taliban control, and Saddam Hussein would still be consorting with terrorists from one of his many palaces in and around Baghdad. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| jjtrek | Nov 19 2003, 04:54 PM Post #24 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
If the only change in the Iraq War scenario is a Democratic President rather than a Republican one, I'd STILL think Bush was a moron!
Julia
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 19 2003, 05:48 PM Post #25 |
|
Time to put something here
|
agreed - I couldnt say it better my self. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 19 2003, 06:10 PM Post #26 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Admiral, there remains one substantial fundamental difference between the incidents you cite. The fact that the 2001 attacks occurred on American soil. To that end we can never know what actions a Gore presidency would have taken. Former President Clinton has not spopken very harshly on the subject of President Bush's response to those attacks. Yes, Gore has voiced considerable criticism of the Iraqi situation, but Clinton remains quiet for the most part. Not very many Democrats have voiced objection to the initial response of invading Afghanistan. Iraq, many of them, see in a different light. Gabe was smart (as I have already indicated) in laying this out with a fictional Democrat. One that would have taken similar actions to President Bush. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 19 2003, 11:19 PM Post #27 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Actually, Bill Clinton has been quite vocal about his opposition to the Iraq War. He says so at every fundraiser he visits and $100,000 speech he makes. He also has claimed that "he" would have gotten Saddam by now... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 20 2003, 08:44 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Sadam, oh I thought he said some sodomy. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2


)


2:14 PM Jul 11