Who will be America's next President ?
- Thread starter alpha85
- Start date
LOL. Yep - all he'd have to do is roundhouse kick Ahmedinejad/Kim Jong-Il/Osama and our troubles will be over :tongue:
Walker - Texas Ranger - now POTUS!
cheers,
Florida Secretary of Agriculture ...
Charles Bronson
You don't dare pull away without paying for your gas in Florida!
Sounds like the Florida Secretary of Agriculture ...
Charles Bronson
You don't dare pull away without paying for your gas in Florida!
Okay, I'll defend Clinton now ...
He learned really quick though, that you listen to military commanders when they ask for AC-130U support.
But yes, the biggest complaint about the Clinton administration was the amount of moving he did of military personnel.
He deployed the US military more than any other President, and the average residence was 6 months (compared to an average well over 2 years).
As far as Osama, it's a lot of hindsight that I can forgive.
Although it did piss me off when he blamed Bush and wouldn't fess up to his own failures.
That was clear lack of class.
Clinton was ignorant and naive, he was new to the whole "Commander-in-Chief" role.
He learned really quick though, that you listen to military commanders when they ask for AC-130U support.
But yes, the biggest complaint about the Clinton administration was the amount of moving he did of military personnel.
He deployed the US military more than any other President, and the average residence was 6 months (compared to an average well over 2 years).
As far as Osama, it's a lot of hindsight that I can forgive.
Although it did piss me off when he blamed Bush and wouldn't fess up to his own failures.
That was clear lack of class.
Re: Okay, I'll defend Clinton now ...
Well, Bush topped him again then. I feel bad for those guys. No relief in sight.
Well, Bush topped him again then. I feel bad for those guys. No relief in sight.
:wtf: Georges? Every thread with any relation to a political situation has you coming out of left field in a completely unrelated manner and insulting Clinton, even though he's not even remotely the topic of discussion. You need to start humming a new tune.
Well I would like to disagree with placing the blame on Clinton for what has happened in Somalia. In fact, I don't think that much has happened. Unless someone wants to blame him for that fact that Somalia is still a lawless hellhole.
If you are talking about that Aidid operation, well, all military operations have the risk of turning really sour. Its not like he actually ran the operation
Re: Okay, I'll defend Clinton now ...
Yes, W. has actually deployed US soliders in urban combat. There is no "equivalent" to doing that, period. I readily admit that. And it puts are boys in harms way unlike any other, at least since Vietnam.
But what W. has not done is saw fit to move the average US soldier around every 6 months for his entire administration.
As I said, even during wartimes, the average has been around 2 years. It was not "fun" to be soldier during the Clinton administration.
In fact, the number of "non-combat deaths" of the Clinton administration isn't exactly "low," given the actual number of military personnel enrolled versus ... say ... the Reagan administration.
Again, not demonizing Clinton, just explaining. The reason why was because the Clinton administration spent an awful amount of money on redeployment, moving troops constantly around, etc... People also forget the Bosnian conflict, which was a huge undertaking. The big difference there was US troops were not involved in urban combat (and ground support was largely a disaster, don't get me started ).
It caused all of my relatives to leave the military, several much earlier than they would have before. They could tolerate Reagan and even H. Bush, because they moved around every 2-3 years max. But under Clinton, they wouldn't even "get settled" somewhere for 4 months before having to "move again."
I'm not talking about people who had only 1 or 2 enlistments. I'm talking about people of 10+ years with families.
Ah, no, you're confusing facts.
Yes, W. has actually deployed US soliders in urban combat. There is no "equivalent" to doing that, period. I readily admit that. And it puts are boys in harms way unlike any other, at least since Vietnam.
But what W. has not done is saw fit to move the average US soldier around every 6 months for his entire administration.
As I said, even during wartimes, the average has been around 2 years. It was not "fun" to be soldier during the Clinton administration.
In fact, the number of "non-combat deaths" of the Clinton administration isn't exactly "low," given the actual number of military personnel enrolled versus ... say ... the Reagan administration.
Again, not demonizing Clinton, just explaining. The reason why was because the Clinton administration spent an awful amount of money on redeployment, moving troops constantly around, etc... People also forget the Bosnian conflict, which was a huge undertaking. The big difference there was US troops were not involved in urban combat (and ground support was largely a disaster, don't get me started
).It caused all of my relatives to leave the military, several much earlier than they would have before. They could tolerate Reagan and even H. Bush, because they moved around every 2-3 years max. But under Clinton, they wouldn't even "get settled" somewhere for 4 months before having to "move again."
I'm not talking about people who had only 1 or 2 enlistments. I'm talking about people of 10+ years with families.
That's because people constantly compare W. to former Presidents, often Clinton.
Most people don't even have their facts straight on Clinton.
I defended Clinton, but also pointed out his issues as well -- which most people aren't aware of.
But most people are in their 20s on this board, and that's a big reason why.
For those of us in our mid-to-late 30s (let alone older), we remember Clinton wasn't all "okey dokey."
In fact, for my relatives who served in Bosnia, as well as one who is in also in Iraq, the only difference is that we're personally (as in the US) involved in urban combat in the latter.
Clinton was just naive ...
But his policy of "I want results now" was just damn naive, and the Chiefs knew it.
He pulls out the large contingent of US Marines (who nobody, at least not since Vietnam, fucks with ) and expects small, US Army special forces to do the job.
And he won't approve of needed supported to like AC-130U gunships for "political reasons."
Even W. has those suckers supporting Ethiopian troops right now, as well as ours in Iraq.
I'm surprised more didn't die (let alone weren't totally massacred) that one fateful day.
A credit to the capability of our ground troops "on their own."
And after that, the Clinton administration blocked key UN resolutions on Rowanda.
We, the US, single-handedly didn't step in on the genocide happening in Rowanda.
This isn't like the Sudan, where the government and much of the African Union was against the UN coming in.
It was the legacy of former Belgian colonization at its best -- pit a people against themselves.
People blame the US for a lot, but one thing we didn't do is go into a nation and pit the people against themselves to "control them."
We might have educated them in our own image, but we didn't build caste systems and other racial divisions.
In fact, one could argue we showed Native Americans how to "get along" (and then they finally realize we were the problem ).
Virtually every major issue, even today in Iraq, has great roots in the "racial divides" most European colonists either created or fostered in their past rule.
We Americans are just too stupid to realize that we can't get everyone to get along like we do.
Yes, we have random violence in this country, but for the most part, you don't have middle class Americans picking each other off because of some ethnicity or religion-based divides!
I work with largely non-Christians (of every type) every day! In the US!
He did basically order it as he got "impatient," over the recommendations of his Chiefs.
And the denial of the AC-130U support was a key component, among other USAF capabilities.
Now with all that said, I don't "get on Clinton" about it.
Yes, Clinton fucked up pretty bad, but it happens, and it's not the first.
He was just naive, new to the position, with little respect for the "tact" that comes with running the military.
And then he made it worse by avoiding any African conflict, like Rowanda, until the genocide was largely over.
He learned from it, and did good in Bosnia, even when Europe wasn't listening.
Although people do forget about the "costs" of that conflict.
Especially the logistics and non-combat deaths.
No, Clinton didn't create Somalia.
But his policy of "I want results now" was just damn naive, and the Chiefs knew it.
He pulls out the large contingent of US Marines (who nobody, at least not since Vietnam, fucks with
) and expects small, US Army special forces to do the job.And he won't approve of needed supported to like AC-130U gunships for "political reasons."
Even W. has those suckers supporting Ethiopian troops right now, as well as ours in Iraq.
I'm surprised more didn't die (let alone weren't totally massacred) that one fateful day.
A credit to the capability of our ground troops "on their own."
And after that, the Clinton administration blocked key UN resolutions on Rowanda.
We, the US, single-handedly didn't step in on the genocide happening in Rowanda.
This isn't like the Sudan, where the government and much of the African Union was against the UN coming in.
It was the legacy of former Belgian colonization at its best -- pit a people against themselves.
People blame the US for a lot, but one thing we didn't do is go into a nation and pit the people against themselves to "control them."
We might have educated them in our own image, but we didn't build caste systems and other racial divisions.
In fact, one could argue we showed Native Americans how to "get along" (and then they finally realize we were the problem
).Virtually every major issue, even today in Iraq, has great roots in the "racial divides" most European colonists either created or fostered in their past rule.
We Americans are just too stupid to realize that we can't get everyone to get along like we do.
Yes, we have random violence in this country, but for the most part, you don't have middle class Americans picking each other off because of some ethnicity or religion-based divides!
I work with largely non-Christians (of every type) every day! In the US!
No, but he fucked it pretty bad. Honestly, he really did.
He did basically order it as he got "impatient," over the recommendations of his Chiefs.
And the denial of the AC-130U support was a key component, among other USAF capabilities.
Now with all that said, I don't "get on Clinton" about it.
Yes, Clinton fucked up pretty bad, but it happens, and it's not the first.
He was just naive, new to the position, with little respect for the "tact" that comes with running the military.
And then he made it worse by avoiding any African conflict, like Rowanda, until the genocide was largely over.
He learned from it, and did good in Bosnia, even when Europe wasn't listening.
Although people do forget about the "costs" of that conflict.
Especially the logistics and non-combat deaths.
I saw a show last night that dealt with an in depth look at gentlemans clubs, and when I tuned in it was talking about how Giuliani cracked down on adult businesses,... so for those of you who think, or wan't him to be the next president keep this in mind: If he cracked down on adult businesses then, he sure as hell will crack down on adult businesses of all kinds during his presidency if he were to get it.
Similar threads
