Oh, except for Bosnia, Somalia, and the empty aspirin factory.
Posted By: Peace? on 2005-09-25
In Reply to: WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton - for letting us who saw the light, realize it (sm)
.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Hey, how about Somalia or perhaps Syria.
c
Clinton and Somalia...
The article was clear, and in military circles the truth is known. When Blackhawk Down happened, Clinton, instead of doing the right thing and stamping on Al Qaeda when he had the chance, chose to run. Al Qaeda was emboldened by that, and were left alone to grow, plan, etc. They felt they scored a great victory in Mogadishu, and in fact, because Clinton ran, they did. You say the country would not have supported a war in the middle east before 9-11. Perhaps not. The people might not have supported a war in Somalia either, as there are some people, like yourself, who believe war is never the answer. As I have said ad nauseam, until the enemy shares your belief (which will never happen), we must defend ourselves or be overtaken or having our cities turn into East Baghdad. They cannot defeat us in a real war, and they know this. I personally do not feel we should accept having 3000 people murdered. Had we smashed them in Somalia, we probably would not have had the issues we now have in Iraq, because the *insurgency* is fueled by Al Qaeda and we all know that. The rank and file Iraqi people would have had no idea how to put forth a guerilla war. Point being...Clinton's administration, or he himself, bear a great burden of responsibility for what we now face. AL Qaeda did the same thing in Somalia they are doing in Iraq now...arming and training. And we had the chance to stop it, and our President chose not to. Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton later, and again he chose not to take it. You choose to take Bush to task for Iraq. I continue to take Clinton to task because I think he is more wholly reponsible. Not because he is a leftist or a Democrat, but because he made a decision based on keeping his political popularity than on doing what was right at the time for the security of this country. Anything else Clinton did, while reprehensible, pales in comparison to that as far as I am concerned. However, that is past, there is nothing I can do to change it. I do, however, resent the fact that the left totally dismisses all that and instead pounces on Bush for at least trying to do the right thing for this country, regardless of the political consequences. But, that takes moral courage, and something Bill Clinton never had and never will have
What I see regarding staying in Iraq is trying to finish what Clinton should have finished in Somalia. And not to abandon those rank and file Iraqis who desperately do want freedom. The insurgents do not speak for the majority of the Iraqi people. The majority of the Iraqi people are almost like children...they have no clue how to fight or defend themselves because they were so oppressed for so many years. It is those people who will be hurt horribly if we go now. But you seem willing to abandon them to it. That is what I do not understand. For someone who professes compassion, I don't know how you justify that. It could be that we are never able to do what we want to do and at some point need to withdraw. I am willing to give Petraeus a chance. I prefer to look at it like he does...stop looking through the rear view mirror and look out over the hood...and let's win this thing. He still believes it can be done. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I think he deserves the chance, and the Iraqi people deserve the chance, to see if he can.
Obama to tax aspirin.
I just heard Obama is going to impose a 40% tax on aspirin because it's white and it works.
Hey, they can't even give them an aspirin without consent, but (sm)
can have an abortion (with all the risks involved!!!) without consent.
Clinton Says She Erred on Bosnia Story
Unfortunately for Hillary, this exact same "mistake" has been spoken on more than one occasion.
By CHARLES BABINGTON (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
March 25, 2008 9:33 PM EDT
GREENSBURG, Pa. - Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she made a mistake in claiming that she came under hostile fire in Bosnia 12 years ago, as rival Barack Obama's campaign continued to challenge her credibility.
In a recent speech and interviews, the New York senator described a harrowing scene in Tuzla, Bosnia, in which she and her daughter, Chelsea, had to run for cover as soon as they landed for a visit in 1996. But video footage of the day showed a peaceful reception in which a young girl greeted the first lady on the tarmac.
Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania on Tuesday that she erred in describing the scene, which she now realizes after talking with aides and others.
"So I made a mistake," she said. "That happens. It proves I'm human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation."
garment factory
My oldest grandparents would go down to the factory and they would draw a lottery for who worked that day. Between the two of them they said most days one was able to stay and work, so they actually felt like they had it made. They did not have indoor plumbing and a dirt floor in a house they built themselves. Later, when they were older, they always had money because they never spent what they earned, not because they earned a lot.
Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia
Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:
You can support the troops but not the president. --Rep Tom Delay
(R-TX)
Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're
going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years. --Joe Scarborough
(R-FL)
Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their
life? --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might
on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit
strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will
cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long
they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound
foreign policy. --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the
administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign
policy. --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they
have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy. --Karen
Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush (words are really too big
to have been spoken by GWB)
I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning ... I
didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area. --Senator
Trent Lott (R-MS)
I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it
is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just
learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with
very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later,
these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of
victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no
clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended
military. There is no explanation defining what vital national
interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the
President started this thing, and there still is no plan today --Rep
Tom Delay (R-TX)
Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is . --Governor George W. Bush
(R-TX)
Funny thing is, we won that war without a single AMERICAN killed in
action. Bush can't make that claim now! And where is HIS exit
strategy?
Do you work in the Kool Aid Factory?
Or just distribute its products?
My father worked in a factory
for 30 years at GM. He was a salvage worker so he wasn't one of those guys who sat on his butt all day long making a ridiculous amount of money. My dad retired in his 60s because his health didn't allow him to continue working or he would have. I know how unions work and how they "protect" the employees. I've also seen the proven statistics about how non-union states are more production and have higher job growth and as far as protecting your job.....no ones job is protected especially nowadays. People are getting fired left and right so where is the protection. What good was that auto bailout when all that money pretty much went to pay off the unions. Unions are nothing but democratic pushed BS.
Here is a tad bit on unions:
The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and industries they control. The essential goal of the unions is to compel the payment of higher wages for the performance of less work and less productive work. Unions are notorious for their hostility to labor saving machinery and to any form of competition among workers, for featherbedding practices, indeed, for “making work” by deliberately and arbitrarily increasing the number of workers required to accomplish a given task and sometimes even by compelling the disassembly or destruction of products already produced.
It should be no wonder that the percentage of the labor force controlled by unions tends progressively to decline. Where the unions hold sway, companies cannot compete. Their market share falls and they ultimately go bankrupt. The only way that unions can maintain any given share of the labor force is by finding new victims to replace the ones they have sucked dry. The finding of new victims, by means of new government intervention is the unstated agenda of Mr. Stern, Ms. Milkman, and The New York Times.
The actual effects of labor unions are arbitrary inequalities in wage rates, mass unemployment, and substantially lower real wages for the average worker. Labor unions are aptly described as a leading vehicle of what von Mises called “destructionism.”
Whenever a union succeeds in obtaining above market wage rates for its members, it also reduces the number of workers who can be employed in its field. This is because of the operation of one of the best established principles of economics: Namely, the higher the price of anything, including the wage of any kind of labor, the smaller is the quantity demanded of that good or labor service.
Thus, workers who could have been employed in the lines controlled by labor unions are instead displaced and forced to seek work elsewhere. The added competition of these workers in other lines then serves either to depress wage rates in those other lines, thereby resulting in an arbitrary, union-imposed inequality in wage rates, or, if those other lines are also unionized or are forced to pay union wages in order to avoid becoming unionized (which is often the case), to cause still other workers to be displaced. It should be clear that to the extent that the effect of union activity is to depress wage rates in other fields, the union slogan “Live Better, Work Union” turns out to mean “Live Better by Forcing Other Workers to Live Worse.”
If wage rates in all lines of work are forced above the free-market level either because labor unions are able to impose their wage scales everywhere, or because upward union pressure on wage rates is joined by minimum-wage legislation, the effect is mass unemployment. In this case, there is simply no branch of the economic system that is allowed to pay wage rates low enough to make possible the absorption of workers displaced from elsewhere by the imposition of union wages. The result is the kind of situation presently existing in France and Germany, where unemployment is in excess of ten percent. And, of course, the cost of supporting the masses of unemployed falls mainly on the workers who manage to keep their jobs. Here higher taxes are their reward for “working union.”
For the full article: http://mises.org/story/1861
empty lives.
Bleak winter months. No interests. Can this explain it? The criticisms seem so weak and lacking in any real conviction. Is it merely failure to accept the inevitable? The years of carping from the right have ended. Perhaps lack of adaptability? Does not bode well according to Darwinism. Fade away, fade away, fade away..
glass empty/full
LOL, ya know, reading your post about glass half empty, geez. I used to, in my younger days, be a glass half full. I used to debate with friends and coworkers, especially liked debating with cute doctors (smile) about their glass half empty view and my glass half full view..However, as I have gotten older, wiser and more tired, yes I guess my view is glass half empty. However, I do think if the situation in this country and the world and the job situation, heck the respect for each other situation was better, my attitude would change.
Their accusations as empty as their heads.
That was how they managed to cow the opposition on the other board, Reader - by initiating shocking personal attacks, maybe you recall that if you were there.
But I totally agree with you, you can't fend off a pack of snarling wolves with toy gun - predictable that that is what they WISH we would do . You can't be courteous to them because they see that as a sign of weakness and take it as the signal to go in for the kill. Then they call you hateful if you point out what a lawless and opportunistic group they really are.
"change", "hope" -just empty slogans
nm
Proof it...just empty words by frustrated MTs..nm
nm
Jeez, I didn't know I was black??? (empty pockets here) :-)......nm
nm
I just recieved a package back in the mail OPENED AND EMPTY...
with a letter from the postoffice asking what it was I mailed off so they can search for it. Never had this happen before.
Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x
Shocking personal attacks after you just called people empty headed?
the hypocrisy is mind boggling and humorous at the same time.
|
