Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Craig Read

Blame Clinton For 9-11

Recommended Posts

Makes me laugh when i hear people whining about the lack of a true coalition.

Er, could the reason be that the only nations with projection capability are the Anglo-Saxon powers sans Canada, who in 1970 officially joined the EU/French club ?

Japan has military capability but like Germany is constrained by history and its constitution from participating. The French lack transport and other communication essentials, as well as a desire to engage the world in the war against terror forcefully, with conviction and valour. They are also not as mobile, integrated, nor as advanced in weaponry as the US.

China is an unknown and reports of Chinese invincibility are greatly exaggerated.

So who can offer what ?

Some token tanks, ships, guns, men and handkerchiefs ?

The world free rides off the US.

Instead of disparaging their efforts like some clowns do on this web site, maybe faineant, wimpish nations like Canada should grow up and develop a proper military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful Craig, no one in these forums is a clown.

Lets keep it clean,

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Memories of the Bosnian coflict that went against the UN Security Coucil by a certain Slick willie went almost unopposed! We lost troops in a war that didn't even do anything for this country....We're not the world's parent and it's not our job to clean house....even when the UN DOES approve something(this usually happens before the French can surrender) the force behind any UN action HAS TO BE THE US backed up with some of our buddies in the UK. If the US dropped out of the UN, they'd have the military capabilities of Greenland!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Read:

Japan's military is also on par with America's. Except they understand the true consequences of agressation. America does not. China fears Japan's military.

China's military is offensively pathetic. It cannot even take Taiwan without nuclear weapons. Every jet on the southern region will be destroyed upon takeoff. Every warship will be hit with salvos of anti-ship missiles. Every invasion force will be repeled. China's military is large. That's ALL it has going for it.

Only Russia and the US have transport capabilities. No one else has. It helps when you operate the largest cargo planes in the world (the russians that is)

Why does Canada need a military? No one wants to attack Canada. Besides, why do they need a military when their puesdo-half-sibiling can do it for them? Besides, militaries are expensive. Why spend all the money on something you will rarely use.

"The world is at war. Either you understand who your friends are or shut up"

America HAS NO FRIENDS. Even Japan is weary of supporting the US. Kuwait is starting to turn aganist the US. The closest thing the US has that resembles a friend, is Iran (the youth support the US heavily). Everyone that went was bought with cash. Even that was not enough for turkey.

The US has given EVERYONE, except the brits the cold shoulder. Now you think everyone wants to support the US now? That's SHEER ARROGANCE.

Is everything black and white in your world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, Craig, Nuke, Hugo - We must be doing something right here 'cause we're drawing trolls like Iraq draws terrorists!

And Craig, you know you shouldn't call anyone a 'clown', it will hurt their tender feelings and they will grow up as maladjusted leftists with an irrational fear of America. Shame on you!

Perhaps it me, perhaps I'm just used to quality postings from people who have views contrary to mine - SirRiff (for example) and I go back and forth but while we disagree, there is no question but that he posts well and defends his positions with comprehensive ideas (on many of which I have contrary views) as also do Black Dog, and many others. You do not see them posting drivel which consists of nothing but anti-American screeds. Lately, if you remove the anti-American comments from some of these new postings no content remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree, you can object to US policy or maybe state that in Iraq we need more civilian police, militia, better trained Iraqi's and so on. But to state that the US has no friends when it has guaranteed or sponsored the freeing of 35 or so nations in the past 50 years is a remarkable testimony to ignorance and stupidity. It is not only a racist statement but one devoid of any truth. Yes the US makes mistakes, but so does every country. The fact that Canada cannot defend itself, has porous borders and still allows 50 % of its immigrant quota to be sourced from Muslim nations is a shame and a security risk of the first order. Not to mention all the other reforms that should be tackled here on other important issues.

I like the Americans, even though i hate Hollywood activists, loathe rednecks, don't follow their sports much and could care less about country music, J-Lo and Jerry Springer. However, these are superfluous and tendential to the key American ideal which is the defense of liberty and freedom. This is the key message, and one that Canadians or EU-nuchs ignore to their own peril. To turn one's back on that ideal and support socialism, apologise for Fascism and fund Terrorism indirectly and directly is the nadir of morality and historical understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ned, I agree, a lot of this is the worst kind of baloney. I think "clowns" is too kind. :)

For instance,

America HAS NO FRIENDS

when I just finished giving a list of 47 other nations who are willing to risk terrorist attack and, in many cases, the lives of their troops, to support America.

Only Russia and the US have transport capabilities. No one else has.

Britain has. How do you think they got to the Falklands anyway - by bus?

Japan's military is also on par with America's.

Nobody's military is on par with America's. The next largest military spender is Russia, humiliated in Chechnya by a rag-tag bunch of separatists. The same kind of organisation in Afghanistan posed nothing more than a turkey shoot for the US military. The Japanese military is constitutionally bound to self-defence and has no power projection capability.

China fears Japan's military.

China fears Rupert Murdoch and families with more than one child. Just because the Chinese government fears something doesn't mean it's fearsome, they are paranoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Craig and Hugo,

To say America's #1 priority is the defence of liberty and freedom is laughable. (Re:Craigs post) They have ONLY the US' interests in mind. The US will gleefully fund, train and support a dictator, as they have in the past, if it is in the interests of the US to do so.

For example, Tienamen square. Cries for help to establish democracy in a brutal dictatorship? What happened? Those that crushed democracy were REWARDED for quelling the 'uppity slaves' that produce profitable goods for US companies.

So it is said that the US makes mistakes, so what? Everyone does? Not too many countries that invade others for their own benefit under tha auspices of 'bringing freedom' illegally invade other countries and then say "oops, that might have been a mistake". Panama was not a mistake. Supporting brutal dictators

in Liberia, Angola, the Phillipines, Indonesia, for years, are these all mistakes? US multinationals made billions from the actions of these dictators, with US help. Will they give the money back because they were 'mistaken'?

Note, if you will, the complete support the US received when going into Afghanistan after Al-Queda. Canadian troops, who have served with distinction,are still there, as are others. No question that it was the right thing to do.

Iraq? Very, very questionable. Yet the US acted as though they were beyond questioning. I question this invasion, and others, such as Panama, for the actions of the US reek to the high heavens. I fully supported them in Afghanistan, though. Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 nations supported the war in Iraq including 16 of 19 NATO members.

So what are you talking about ? do you know what you are talking about ?

If not for the US who would have freed 35 countries in the past 25 years ?

The UN ? Sure ask Central Africans how wonderful the UN was in Rwanda and the Congo. Or maybe ask the Chileans during Allende's disastrous reign of power.

Or perhaps ask the Poles during the 1980s as martial law was declared.

Get a new idea man. Your shopworn nonsense grows thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Read,

The US 'coalition of the willing' received the nickname 'coalition of the coerced' for good reason. The coalition grew in numbers more from the active 'begging and threats' than it did from any cogent argument for the case.

Of the 35 countries 'freed' you and others refer to, were they freed from oppression, or of the resopnsibility of governing (and profiting from) their own resources?

Which ones would they be? I will gladly search for their own accounts and not CNN or Turner Broadcasting spins.

Africa, you say. I'm sure those people beheaded (or is it de-headed) by US sponsored rebel groups in Angola with the sole purpose of 'spreading terror' will be glad when the fighting is over, no matter who wins. As General Von Moltke said, " The greatest kindness one can offer in war is to bring it to a speedy conclusion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do know that Turkey was going to join then backed out. The US had offered them billions and they tried to keep the loan but the US declined. It was highly publicized so if you have further info of bribes rather than speculation bring it forward and strengthen your point. Right now it's pure speculation on your part that most were coersed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that no one has a military worthy of projection outside of Britain and the US is cause for dejection. Turkey backed out because southern Turkey's economy was thriving under the UN sanctions. The Turks were making billions off of smuggled product and the most coveted job in southern Turkey during the 1990s was a lorry driver. Turkey did not want to lose its precious trade.

So much for high ideals.

Terror will be beaten with force and power. The Gliberals, and Dumbocruds thought love would conquer Russia and China. No Force and military strength destroyed Communism.

A lesson in history that the Lie-berals might heed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear KK and Mr. Read,

I would also point out that Turkey did not want to be seen as an occupying force in Iraq. The Kurds are poised to secede from part of their country as well. Then they were also faced with the problem of being seen as abetting the 'great satan' in attacking Muslims.

No matter how many billions the US may have promised them, it would still look like 30 pieces of silver.

You will note, that:

1: the US and coalition have no interest in 'freeing the Kurds' from either the rule of Iraq or Turkey, for the northern oilfields are huge, and (inconveniently for the Kurds) lie on 'traditional Kurdish lands'.

2: The US still desires approval from the UN, even though they dismissed them as 'irrelevant'. I suspect that the UN has, in this case, been relegated to the position of 'investment consultant' and needs them to show the reluctant nations 'what a good deal investing in Iraq' would be. Thank goodness Canada has not decided to increase wealth by forcible invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also point out that Turkey did not want to be seen as an occupying force in Iraq. The Kurds are poised to secede from part of their country as well. Then they were also faced with the problem of being seen as abetting the 'great satan' in attacking Muslims.

You must be getting Nova to do your research. It was all the US could do to keep Turkey out of Northern Iraq. Remember? Kurds and Turkey being afraid that it might create an uprising with Kurds in Turkey. Wow, can't beleive you missed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KK, you are dealing with marxist revisionists - these would be the same Lie-bullroars that deny the existence of the Holocaust.

Sure Turkey wanted no part of Gulf War II. The reasons are legion; anti-American populace, US forces would parade through Turkish territory compromising Turkey's vaunted sovereignty, southeaster Turkish trade would be decimated by the overthrow of Insane Hussein's regime, the Kurds in Turkey might be emboldened to form a Pan Kurdish state with their brothers in Iraq and France and Russian pressure was overbearing not to fall into the 'American' camp.

The fact that Iraq is free, has a chance and can rebuild itself without the useless slaughter of civilians occuring on a daily basis, plus all the geo-political benefits of reforming the Middle east does not make any impression on the racist anti-jew anti-american Lie-bullroar group.

For them freedom is not important.

Just spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Read, just who do you think you are to be judging? It's really easy to blame Clinton for your own biased opinion isn't it, don't assume that every event ends up in a domino effect, and when it does you don't have the right to point your ugly finger.

All I hear you guys saying is "If Clinton had done something this never would have happened," wake up losers, you can't predict what would have been. It could have been worse, ever thought of that? He could have really pissed them off and a nuclear weapon might have detonated on your front porch. At least it would have shut you up, if Clinton went after every wanna-be terrorist who called in a bomb threat at school then we would be overwhelmed, dont ASSUME Bin Laden was the only one.

I can't believe you are still crying and trying to pull the blame away from Bush. Guess what, it happened when BUSH was president, guess what else, it WASNT HIS FAULT EITHER, even if he is the most incompetent president ever. He can be blamed for Iraq, still looking for those non-existant nukes buddy? A crumbling economy, a JUMP in unemployment. Clinton was getting out of our national debt, one of the biggest economics jumps in decades. Now it's all gone thanks to bush, I lost $20,000 that was to be used for my education because of the failing economy. He gave all the people with hundereds of thousands in stock tax breaks, not the people who need it like STUDENTS or just a little money in stock.

I can't figure out what is wrong with you people, Bush has done nothing productive in his administration. He is asking for another 87 billion for Iraq, what about OUR country? All the hungry that could be fed, all the sick that could be cured, if that money went to making cars safer then we would be saving tens and tens of thousands of lives instead of trying to get revenge of a couple thousand(RIP). The problem with you conservatives is you live in the past, instead of making things better you well on the past, stop crying and make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Synon, welcome to the Forum. You are correct that neither Clinton or Bush is to "blame" for 9.11.

I believe the judgment of history will be that Clinton was elected 'over' his abilities. In one respect, it's a surprise that he failled at Foreign Relations since he was a Fulbright Scholar at Oxford but Sen. Fulbright was quite liberal so it's not too earthshaking that Slick Willie echoed his political views. If there is any inditement, perhaps it is of liberal views in a 'RealPolitic' World. But no doubt we differ in our opinions on that.

I find your economic anasysis rather facile - Bush acheived very little in the economic area in his first ten months, prior to 9.11 and it is only recently that 'his' policies have been in effect. Candidly, I think any President is a "Fall Guy" for the economy and suspect that the economy has a life outside the control of the political arena.

The bottom fifty percent of the theoretical tax paying residents of America pay no taxes - students are normally in this group - so any tax cuts have to go to those who pay taxes. Unless, of course, this is all BS about fairness and is all about redistribution of wealth.

The hungry and sick (you forgot the "Homeless") can not be feed or cured unless they are alive - you do remember that there are a few fanatics interested in killing us, don't you? We should be so lucky that it only costs us 87 Billion to kill a few more terrorists in Iraq - better there than here. And besides, isn't 87 Bil about the average "Pork" budget for each of our Senators, whatever the Party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome.

I completely agree that the next president will always be the fall guy(exception to the rule... the guys who are blaming the president BEFORE it happened). I do realize the economy is not completely in the hands of the president, but he has an extremely large impact. We must remember as a capitalist society a free market does not exist, but then it's not completely controlled by the government either.

Im not sure about the figure on how many are paying taxes, but most college students have a job and pay income tax... which doesn't make sense(why dont we just keep the money and not have to take out a loan). The specific tax relief I was talking about was given to those with a large amount of money invested in the stock market, although they may be tax payers, they arent the ones who need it the most. It did not include most middle class family, only the rich seem to get the breaks, and they are the last ones who even need it.

Oh, you can find penty of sick, hungry, and yes homeless people who are still alive. I do remember there are people trying to kill us, but I am weighing the differences. 10,000(alot more than this in reality) die every year because they cant afford gas and freeze to death, cant afford food, cant afford medical bills. OR you can have 3,000 die in a terrorist attack once in a while. Yes, the act is outraging that someone hated us that much, but if it took the same amount of funds to save the 10,000 as the 3,000... I dont know about you, but it would be worth it to me to save the many rather than save the few. So many seem to forget that they were people too, just like the victims of 911, but they push it aside and that outrages me more than anything.

For a little more safey, I don't believe that is money well spent. You have to realize, you cant kill them all, and when one falls another will stand up, even more angry than before. Sure, we might save another 3,000 but I would rather save 10,000 instead. Cant get caught up in the cause rather than the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all.

Not that I’m a big Clinton fan but he did put out an open order to capture or take out Osama to both the CIA and DIA. He was told by the Joint Chiefs that a cruse missile attack was his only best option and an invasion into Afghanistan was a non-option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great leader then wasn't he. I suppose he did a focus group, a poll, canvassed the Dumbocruds who are arch appeasers and then ask Monica for a BJ before deciding it was all just too much work to stop terrorism dead in its tracks.

Clinton was remarkably good at doing nothing and ignoring everything - except of course interns, real estate deals and pardoning criminals that donate $ to the Dumbocruds.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“``I authorized the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama bin Laden and we actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it. We also trained commandos for a possible ground action but did not have the necessary intelligence to do it in the way we would have had to do it,'' Mr. Clinton said in New York.”

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09...es/03240003.htm

Clinton was embroiled in ‘cigargate’ there were wolves everywhere he turned. I’m not saying this as an excuse but possibly the Joint Chiefs knew the country would not follow him into war.

As I stated I’m no fan so your indignation is lost on me but facts are facts he received poor intelligence and advice. Remember the United States People had never before heard the words Osama bin Laden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a farce.

Clinton said in a speech in NY years after the event ? Oh yeah good proof. Right on Ace.

Clinton the notorious liar who perjured himself and was impeached ?

Clinton who would lie to his own wife is to be trusted with his recollection that he was 'tough on terror'.

Sorry Ace. Actions not words.

Clinton missed the opportunity and 9-11 was the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Whistler, welcome to the Forum.

I will only point out that the Joint Chiefs are appointed by the President and Clinton is notorious for appointing politicians rather than fighters. The Army is top heavy with political Generals and Colonels that's why Rummy went to a retired Special Forces fighter, in hopes he can weed out the politicals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...