Dear Conservative/Republican friends...

I would not call Clinton's foreign policy "conservative" by any means. He was very liberal with FMF to monsters like Suharto, made huge arms deals Israel (larger ones than Regan I believe), supported Turkey while they were wiping out Kurds by the tens of thousands, bombed Iraq, bombed Kosovo, etc. etc.

He was comparatively more conservative than Regan and Bush, but that doesn't say much to me. It's like saying a rapist is less violent than a serial killer.

MrBrian wrote:

I remember the pro war bunch quite well. But I'm sure they will support the next war when it happens. Then say "I was wrong again...oopps"

---

and I agree with saturnal. well posted

hehehe....that cracked me up.

MrBrian wrote:

no it was not justified.
----

sure Something had to be done after the 9/11/01 attacks. you should find out who did it,find out why it happened. But what would carpet bombing villages in afghanistan solve? what did it solve? is the better question.

The people of afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So I don't think bombing them can be justified. Now so many years later america still has not caught whoever was behind it and still fails to understand why something like those 9/11 attacks happened in the first place.

We know this becoz after they bombed afghanistan they bombed iraq, I mean what the hell.

I think our invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. The government of Afghanistan was aiding and abetting the organization that ordered and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Yes I know it is very hypocritical of our government to chastize a country for harboring terrorist since we do it ourselves but something had to be done. The problem was that we did a half-ass job in Afghanistan. The Bush administration wanted to do the job on the cheap because they already had their sights set on Iraq. Had we gone into Afghanistan, secured the Afghan-Pakistan border ourselves and not outsourced the hunt for Al Qaida and Taliban leadership to a bunch of opium dealing rag tag warlords whose only loyality is to the highest bidder our operations in Afghanistan may have provided better results. It also would have helped if we stayed around to make sure that the job we started was done right.

jlew24asu wrote:

we were attacked by el queda who had their base of operations in afganistan under taliban protection. how was retaliation for the worst attack in history not justified?


like what?

we did know who did it.

we didnt carpet bomb villages. we bombed taliban military installations. and subsequently removed them from power.

the taliban and el queda were responsible. civillians were not targeted.

yea its sad. we never caught osama.




america didnt carpet bomb villages. we bombed the tab

it was the worst attack in history? did your history only start in 2001? nevertheless, if a group of nuts from say chicago bomb a say ummm a buidling in say ummm florida, do you bomb chicago becoz they have a base someplace in the chicago area?

Yes something had to be done, like find out why someone would wanna attack you in the first place would be a good start.

So you know who did it yet bombing the entire country was the only way to get them? yet you didnt get them anyway.

You should read all those many reports and articles, america bombed more homes and villages then your so called "taliban military installations" whatever they are. perhaps a clay house with lazer beams?

civillians were not targeted? perhaps america needs better aim becoz they killed many thousands of them.
---

yes, it is all really sad.

mammasan wrote:

I think our invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. The government of Afghanistan was aiding and abetting the organization that ordered and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Yes I know it is very hypocritical of our government to chastize a country for harboring terrorist since we do it ourselves but something had to be done. The problem was that we did a half-ass job in Afghanistan. The Bush administration wanted to do the job on the cheap because they already had their sights set on Iraq. Had we gone into Afghanistan, secured the Afghan-Pakistan border ourselves and not outsourced the hunt for Al Qaida and Taliban leadership to a bunch of opium dealing rag tag warlords whose only loyality is to the highest bidder our operations in Afghanistan may have provided better results. It also would have helped if we stayed around to make sure that the job we started was done right.

I think that until america learns why it all happened in the first place, going around invading a country is not a good idea and the resluts can not be positive. perhaps if america (after 9/11) took a few steps back (like that chinese proverb) before taking a step forward and looked at the situation. It wouldve been better.

But we must also remember that the american public were itching for a fight after the attacks,revenge is all they saw and if the american government said "goofy" was behind the attacks on 9/11, the public wouldve supported Bush bomb disney world becoz mickey mouse was keeping goofy in the majic kingdom some place.

Saturnal wrote:

I would not call Clinton's foreign policy "conservative" by any means. He was very liberal with FMF to monsters like Suharto, made huge arms deals Israel (larger ones than Regan I believe), supported Turkey while they were wiping out Kurds by the tens of thousands, bombed Iraq, bombed Kosovo, etc. etc.

He was comparatively more conservative than Regan and Bush, but that doesn't say much to me. It's like saying a rapist is less violent than a serial killer.

Don't forget The Sudan....blew up a couple of factories there after the Embassy attacks, I believe.

MrBrian wrote:

I think that until america learns why it all happened in the first place, going around invading a country is not a good idea and the resluts can not be positive. perhaps if america (after 9/11) took a few steps back (like that chinese proverb) before taking a step forward and looked at the situation. It wouldve been better.

But we must also remember that the american public were itching for a fight after the attacks,revenge is all they saw and if the american government said "goofy" was behind the attacks on 9/11, the public wouldve supported Bush bomb disney world becoz mickey mouse was keeping goofy in the majic kingdom some place.

I agree that we should find out why these people attack and and work to rectify our policies that alienates these people, but at the sametime we need to act against aggressors as well. I for one don't believe for one second the whole "they hate us because of our freedoms" bullshit line the government and media feeds us. It's pretty damn apparent that they hate us because of our meddling in the affairs of their countries. We need to work on that because if we fail to do so we will only continue to fuel the fire and they will continue to breed more terrorists. I think after 9/11 there was definitely a huge blood lust in the American public. We had just watched 3,000 people die, the WTC center be destroyed, and the Pentagon attacked. People definitely wanted revenge and that is a pretty normal reaction. I still to this day support our actions in Afghanistan but I do not approve of the manner in which we carried the mission out. The people behind the attacks, and those that aided them, where there and we needed to get them. Did we do a good job? HELL NO!!! Plain and simple we fucked up. Not because our troops and commanders where inept but because the people at the top really had their sights on another target and this was just a stepping stone, when it really should have been the primary target.