Some Quotes from when

[Dr. K]

"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

 

"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)

[BadDad]

Thank you good Dr., perspective, (and history), is vital when considering any of these issues. The political speaches of today most definately will come back and bite those that have uttered them.

 

Evidence the complete turn around position on stem cell research that was orchestrated by Senator Frist.

 

"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

 

"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)

410425[/snapback]

[blzrul]

Why do I feel someone's playing "The Sounds of Silence" in the background.....

[erynthered]

So whos right then, when you say it or the other side says it. You've just made yourselves look as pathetic as the others. Cheers. Idiots all of you. Argue that idiots.

[Tux of Borg]

When did Clinton commit troops to Bosnia... 1995, 1996? This was before 3,000 innocent people were killed on US soil. Nothing to do with politics, just different periods in this country's history IMHO.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

    Why do I feel someone's playing "The Sounds of Silence" in the background.....

410508[/snapback]

 

Because it's not worth a response? From anyone else making the point that politicians are hypocrites, it might be...but from a raving partisan like Dr. K who's only possible purpose could be to prove that anything not Democrat and liberal is evil...why even bother?

[boomerjamhead]

"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

 

"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)

410425[/snapback]

 

Are they referring to that war that the rest of Europe couldn't handle on it's own?

[Terry Tate]

Ok, since you didn't make any statement to comment on, I'll throw some out there.

"You can support the troops but not the president."

--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

I'm confused. Do you throw this out there to mean Tom Delay is a hypocrite, or Democrats who oppose him are hypocrites? (hint: correct answers are widely believed to be yes and yes). Anyway, that's not what the left says. They say you can be against the war, but support the troops. The same troops they then accuse of war crimes.

"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)

It was Clinton who said they would be there a year, tops. It will be 10 years in December, so it looks like this was spot on. You do realize there are still troops there, don't you? So I'm not sure of the point of including this quote.

"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

That's the case that should be made whenever a nation goes to war. And it was. Bipartisan support from Congress on Iraq, all-volunteer military - again, not sure what the point of including this quote is. Unless you mean Clinton should have been explaining to each and every servicemember's mother and father - that would've taken a while. Or he doesn't, but Bush should; now I'm confused again.

"[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)

Clinton's repeated committment of troops (note the "once again") to potential combat situations without clearly defined objectives, and therefore exit strategies, were of concern. Again, note he said troops would be there no more than a year, and that was ten years ago. This is also a concern in Iraq, though clearly objectives are being met. What the current administration needs to do is defined at what point is our part complete.

"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)

Tom Delay again. Maybe he was referring to one of Bill's apology tours, I don't know.

"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

Same as above; these should all be prerequisites to comitting troops. Bill Clinton didn't operate this way, and many on the left were ok with it then - but hey, welcome aboard! In Iraq, the mission is clear enough, and I would say it's equally clear it is unachievable on our own. It relies on Iraqis. So too does the exit strategy. Obviously cause for concern.

"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)

Hmmn, could just possibly be a politician trying to be right either way it goes. Nah, Trent Lott wouldn't do that, would he?

"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)

If you can explain the Bosnia timetable, definition of victory, and define what our national interest is there, I'll let you keep another Delay quote. Ask Bill Clinton, it's been ten years, maybe he's figured it out by now.

"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)

Again, an accurate statement as it applies to Bosnia, and now Iraq. What is our standard of victory, and by extension exit strategy for both? I've stated my concerns about Iraq. What's your answer on Bosnia? It's been ten years, you think Bill Clinton has an exit strategy yet?

[TPS]

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of the right. It wouldn't be necessary if Clinton were president right now; could you imagine the posts about Iraq from the usual suspects here?

 

Maybe they'd finally get the fact that you can support your troops but disagree with the policy/startegy of the administration...

[Thurman's Helmet]

Need anyone bring up all those Democratic quotes about Iraq's WMD's/Threat level?

 

 

I love how the left consistently contradicts themselves if only to try to prove a point and win an argument which is typical of the left everywhere. Stand for nothing, flip flop on any issue but just win the argument at the time. Verrrry nice.

 

Republican dominated government as far as the eye can see in your futures!

[erynthered]

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of the right.  It wouldn't be necessary if Clinton were president right now; could you imagine the posts about Iraq from the usual suspects here?

 

Maybe they'd finally get the fact that you can support your troops but disagree with the policy/startegy of the administration...

410606[/snapback]

 

 

And you see none from the left? I had thought you smarter than this. Guess not......

[KRC]

"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

 

"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)

410425[/snapback]

 

So, what you are saying is that Republicans are just as hypocritical as the Democrats? Wow. Next, you will say that water is wet.

 

Thanks, Dr. Obvious.

[Mickey]

Thank you good Dr., perspective, (and history), is vital when considering any of these issues. The political speaches of today most definately will come back and bite those that have uttered them.

 

Evidence the complete turn around position on stem cell research that was orchestrated by Senator Frist.

410493[/snapback]

You mean Senator Schiavo, that guy?

[Mickey]

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of the right.  It wouldn't be necessary if Clinton were president right now; could you imagine the posts about Iraq from the usual suspects here?

 

Maybe they'd finally get the fact that you can support your troops but disagree with the policy/startegy of the administration...

410606[/snapback]

Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Off with your head.

[Ghost of BiB]

Politics. It's what's for dinner.

 

FWIW, I was personally very much against the Balkans business. A TV war, for no purpose that anyone could figure out (in terms of National Interest) that from day one was never prosecuted as a war. (The Pentagon was given guidance that there would be NO American casualties). In terms of modern day relevancy, it was the equivalent of attacking the Sunni in support of the Shia. Pick a side, bomb, capitalize politically. It's blown over, water under the bridge now - but I still wonder WTF was accomplished. And don't start yelling genocide. That's not what that was about. Serbs and Albanians have been at it for a thousand years. So, we side with the Muslims and GUESS WHAT??? The same gunrunners and drug smugglers we "saved" provide some of the Taliban's primary opium smuggling and human traffic routes up into Western Europe. Way cool.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Off with your head.

410699[/snapback]

 

*yawn*

 

Wake me when you have something insightful to say.

[RkFast]

The difference, Doc.....is that pretty much everyone here who "sides" or agrees with the Right even only fropm time to time KNOWS about the hypocrisy; acknowledges it and accepts it as part and parcel of politics in America.

 

YOU and YOUR ilk think it doesnt exist...that everything you do is "right" and every word said from Dean to Kennedy right down to Moore and his puppet camping in Texas is spot-on.

 

We know there is crabgrass on our front lawn. You think your crabgrass is a bunch of flowers.

[Dr. K]

Need anyone bring up all those Democratic quotes about Iraq's WMD's/Threat level? 

I love how the left consistently contradicts themselves if only to try to prove a point and win an argument which is typical of the left everywhere.    Stand for nothing, flip flop on any issue but just win the argument at the time.        Verrrry nice.

410611[/snapback]

 

In February of 2003, millions of people were in the streets trying to prevent this war. Many people, myself included, were not convinced that the reports of WMD were credible, and that even if they were a possibility, this war was not the best way to deal with them. For instance, the whole "aluminum tubes" justification was seruiously questioned by scientists in September of 2002, but Bush was still using that as a reason for war in his State of the Union speech in January 2003. I thought--at the time,l not just now--that those democratic politicians who signed onto supporting Bush's war were making a big mistake.

 

I did not flip flop. I paid attention and thought for myself.

 

In response to some of the other postings here: yes, politicians are often hypocrites. Just don't try to convince me that Tom Delay and Rick Santorum and the rest of these Repubs aren't talking out of both sides of their mouth on Iraq.

[RkFast]

In response to some of the other postings here:  yes, politicians are often hypocrites.  Just don't try to convince me that Tom Delay and Rick Santorum and the rest of these Repubs aren't talking out of both sides of their mouth on Iraq.

410811[/snapback]

 

Not me. To do so would be disrespectful and stupid.

[Mickey]

*yawn*

 

Wake me when you have something insightful to say.

410703[/snapback]

Well, you're certainly a lot of fun today. Whatsamatta, still distraught over Roscoe's sprain/break/infection/VD/amputation or whatever it is?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

In response to some of the other postings here:  yes, politicians are often hypocrites.  Just don't try to convince me that Tom Delay and Rick Santorum and the rest of these Repubs aren't talking out of both sides of their mouth on Iraq.

410811[/snapback]

 

I won't...but name one politician that isn't. Hell, Kerry's entire campaign was based on the idea that no one was paying enough attention to notice his duplicity.

[Dr. K]

Not me. To do so would be disrespectful and stupid.

410848[/snapback]

 

Fair enough.

[Alaska Darin]

Oh look! An entire thread about the hypocrisy of big party politics in America started by one of the biggest apologists on the board. How rich.

 

Keep wallowing and excuse making. Your side good, other side evil. You'll keep getting exactly what you deserve.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I'm sorry, but while I completely agree with the idea that both parties engage in hypocrisy, I don't believe this is a specific case of it.

 

One big difference between the two war situations: Iraq was an issue of national defense (at least that's what it was sold to us as), while Clinton never attempted to describe the Bosnian military intervention as anything but international humanitarian assistance.

 

So any Dem who supported Clinton in Bosnia CANNOT, in good conscience, claim that Bush's Iraq war is somehow unjust (they can, however, disagree with HOW the war has ben carried out).

 

And those Republicans who were against US involvement in the Bosnian war CAN still support the Iraq war on the grounds that our intelligence agencies believed Saddam posed a grave threat to US sovereignty via WMD's and support of Islamic terrorists.

 

Furthermore, the Reps can blame the poor intelligence gathering that led to Iraq War 2 mostly on Clinton. It was, after all, an intelligence community that Mr. Clinton let collapse under his 8 years in office following the Cold War.

 

FWIW, I personally was in favor of our involvement in both conflicts. While in principle I hate the idea of having to police the entire world, I blame the total incompetence of the UN and NATO for putting us in this position of military authority.

[Chilly]

So, what you are saying is that Republicans are just as hypocritical as the Democrats? Wow. Next, you will say that water is wet.

 

Thanks, Dr. Obvious.

410679[/snapback]

 

Some people on this board (Rich in Ohio) need to be reminded of that.

[finknottle]

Ok, since you didn't make any statement to comment on, I'll throw some out there.

 

It was Clinton who said they would be there a year, tops. It will be 10 years in December, so it looks like this was spot on. You do realize there are still troops there, don't you? So I'm not sure of the point of including this quote.

:

Again, an accurate statement as it applies to Bosnia, and now Iraq. What is our standard of victory, and by extension exit strategy for both? I've stated my concerns about Iraq. What's your answer on Bosnia? It's been ten years, you think Bill Clinton has an exit strategy yet?

410587[/snapback]

 

It's hard to tell whether you are serious, just yanking chains, or just partisanly deluded. The US led force, IFOR (totalling about 40k?, with 20k US), ended its mission in 1996. It was replaced by the NATO-led SFOR, which scaled down to about 20k (5k US). It too ended, last year, and peacekeeping duties fall to the EU (7k troops). As of last summer, before the end of SFOR, there were only 700 US troops there. There are only 200 now, and their only duties are rebuilding assistance to the military, not peacekeeping.

 

Lest we get into semantic arguments about whether the end of IFOR (and SFOR after that) signify an exit strategy, let me point out that we have troops all over the world in much higher numbers, and at greater risk. And in the 10 years since the Dayton Peace Accord, the total number US or NATO deaths to hostile action in Bosnia is 0. As far as I'm concerned, whatever the exit strategy was, it worked marvelously.

 

Here's a list of interesting places with more troops (in '04) than Bosnia:

17,385 Alaska

3,221 Guam

43,232 In transit

36,365 Japan

40,840 Korea

1,474 Belgium

76,058 Germany

1,491 Iceland

12,606 Italy

701 Netherlands

1,006 Portugual

1,814 Serbia

2,012 Spain

11,469 UK

1,712 Bahrain

816 Diego Garcia

170,647 Iraq

20,000 Kuwait

1,762 Turkey

682 Guantanamo

[KRC]

Some people on this board (Rich in Ohio) need to be reminded of that. 

412383[/snapback]

 

Rich will no longer be playing on our sandbox. I think that is reminder enough.

[Terry Tate]

It's hard to tell whether you are serious, just yanking chains, or just partisanly deluded.

Often all of the above, occasionally two out of three, normally at least one, sometimes just nuts all on my own. I know I supported missions in the area years past what you report as the official end of the US mission. I have friends who were still pulling tours there when I last spoke with them last year. So rather than research it, I spoke based upon personal knowledge, which is a year old now. So I was out of date, but the bottom line is that quote panned out. It took ten years of US military presence, not the one year Clinton threw out there to try to quiet the argument.

Lest we get into semantic arguments about whether the end of IFOR (and SFOR after that) signify an exit strategy, let me point out that we have troops all over the world in much higher numbers, and at greater risk. And in the 10 years since the Dayton Peace Accord, the total number US or NATO deaths to hostile action in Bosnia is 0.  As far as I'm concerned, whatever the exit strategy was, it worked marvelously.

"Whatever the exit strategy was" is exactly what the subject quotes were questioning ten years ago, along with a definition of what our national interest was in the conflict. European nations had a very clear interest in what was happening there; I don't know that ours was ever defined.

 

These are things that must be addressed any time US troops are asked to leave home and go to Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. It's not hypocritical for congressmen to ask these questions, it's a freaking requirement. As is the requirement of the current administration to answer the same questions. Whether or not you agree with their answers, the debate is necessary and must always take place.

 

I'm sure Dr K is equally upset with the Congress who ignored their responsibility to determine the answers to these questions, and instead voted to authorized the President to attack, giving him the authority to make the decision on his own. That vote went 296-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate. You want to be P.O.'ed at someone, how about the branch that has the sole authority to declare war? Or do they get a pass on this and get your vote again because they belong to the same party as you? BTW, people who support the war should be upset at that debacle as well. Looking for a reason to vote for a third party, well there you go.

Here's a list of interesting places with more troops (in '04) than Bosnia:

You don't have to tell me, I served tours in some of those places. You want to make a case to bring some of those guys back, I don't have any problem with that.

[/dev/null]

Here's a list of interesting places with more troops (in '04) than Bosnia:

17,385    Alaska

413141[/snapback]

 

Darin must have done a great job hiding those WMDs

[Alaska Darin]

It's hard to tell whether you are serious, just yanking chains, or just partisanly deluded. The US led force, IFOR (totalling about 40k?, with 20k US), ended its mission in 1996. It was replaced by the NATO-led SFOR, which scaled down to about 20k (5k US). It too ended, last year, and peacekeeping duties fall to the EU (7k troops). As of last summer, before the end of SFOR, there were only 700 US troops there. There are only 200 now, and their only duties are rebuilding assistance to the military, not peacekeeping.

 

Lest we get into semantic arguments about whether the end of IFOR (and SFOR after that) signify an exit strategy, let me point out that we have troops all over the world in much higher numbers, and at greater risk. And in the 10 years since the Dayton Peace Accord, the total number US or NATO deaths to hostile action in Bosnia is 0.  As far as I'm concerned, whatever the exit strategy was, it worked marvelously.

 

Here's a list of interesting places with more troops (in '04) than Bosnia:

17,385    Alaska

3,221    Guam

43,232    In transit

36,365    Japan

40,840    Korea

  1,474    Belgium

76,058    Germany

1,491    Iceland

12,606    Italy

  701    Netherlands

1,006    Portugual

1,814    Serbia

2,012    Spain

11,469    UK

1,712    Bahrain

  816    Diego Garcia

170,647  Iraq

20,000  Kuwait

1,762    Turkey

  682    Guantanamo

413141[/snapback]

The troop numbers may very well be true but we're still spending a ton of taxpayer money on contractors over there (I have friends who rotate over there every 90 days). It's quite sad that we waste so many resources in places like that when our own borders are so woefully unprotected.

[EC-Bills]

Darin must have done a great job hiding those WMDs

413455[/snapback]

 

Well, what do you expect?!? When you have a hot line of designer baby seal clubs, you just can't leave all of them in the open for all to see.

[EC-Bills]

The troop numbers may very well be true but we're still spending a ton of taxpayer money on contractors over there (I have friends who rotate over there every 90 days).  It's quite sad that we waste so many resources in places like that when our own borders are so woefully unprotected.

413663[/snapback]

 

I remember seeing a PBS Frontline special a while back that went over that very topic (contracters and they're charging). They were going over the cost-per-plate since food was being catered.

[Bill from NYC]

Politics. It's what's for dinner.

 

FWIW, I was personally very much against the Balkans business. A TV war, for no purpose that anyone could figure out (in terms of National Interest) that from day one was never prosecuted as a war. (The Pentagon was given guidance that there would be NO American casualties). In terms of modern day relevancy, it was the equivalent of attacking the Sunni in support of the Shia. Pick a side, bomb, capitalize politically. It's blown over, water under the bridge now - but I still wonder WTF was accomplished. And don't start yelling genocide. That's not what that was about. Serbs and Albanians have been at it for a thousand years. So, we side with the Muslims and GUESS WHAT??? The same gunrunners and drug smugglers we "saved" provide some of the Taliban's primary opium smuggling and human traffic routes up into Western Europe. Way cool.

410701[/snapback]

 

Bravo BiB. I sure am glad that we saved those little devils. Can you feel it?

[Buckey]

Politics. It's what's for dinner.

 

FWIW, I was personally very much against the Balkans business. A TV war, for no purpose that anyone could figure out (in terms of National Interest) that from day one was never prosecuted as a war. (The Pentagon was given guidance that there would be NO American casualties). In terms of modern day relevancy, it was the equivalent of attacking the Sunni in support of the Shia. Pick a side, bomb, capitalize politically. It's blown over, water under the bridge now - but I still wonder WTF was accomplished. And don't start yelling genocide. That's not what that was about. Serbs and Albanians have been at it for a thousand years. So, we side with the Muslims and GUESS WHAT??? The same gunrunners and drug smugglers we "saved" provide some of the Taliban's primary opium smuggling and human traffic routes up into Western Europe. Way cool.

410701[/snapback]

 

No Purpose?

Not ethnic cleansing???

You have got to be kidding.... right?

I guess the mass graves, systematic mass killings never happened. And it was not about the Serbs vs. the Albanians... it was about Milosevich invading the regions surrounding countries with no end in site... a smaller version of Hitler if you will. I was there, and I had relatives there as well (Christian Albanians). You have no clue what you are talking about on this one.

[Ghost of BiB]

No Purpose?

Not ethnic cleansing???

You have got to be kidding.... right?

I guess the mass graves, systematic mass killings never happened. And it was not about the Serbs vs. the Albanians... it was about Milosevich invading the regions surrounding countries with no end in site... a smaller version of Hitler if you will. I was there, and I had relatives there as well (Christian Albanians). You have no clue what you are talking about on this one.

414161[/snapback]

 

I'm not saying that it never happened. Milosevich is an animal. What I'm saying, is where did that fit into our own national interest? And, I stand by the idea that we are getting burned right now by some of the people we "saved".

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No Purpose?

Not ethnic cleansing???

You have got to be kidding.... right?

I guess the mass graves, systematic mass killings never happened. And it was not about the Serbs vs. the Albanians... it was about Milosevich invading the regions surrounding countries with no end in site... a smaller version of Hitler if you will. I was there, and I had relatives there as well (Christian Albanians). You have no clue what you are talking about on this one.

414161[/snapback]

 

Yeah. Remember that when you B word about Iraq.

[Buckey]

I'm not saying that it never happened. Milosevich is an animal. What I'm saying, is where did that fit into our own national interest? And, I stand by the idea that we are getting burned right now by some of the people we "saved".

414248[/snapback]

 

That's entirely possible that we are getting burned by some of them, just as we will be by Iraqi's, and have by Bin Laden. If left up to Milosevich, his ambition was to take over the Balkan states, we would have a European Enemy and a new threat. If Saddam was a threat, then this guy was at least just as bad. That region would have become unstable and that's unacceptable in Europe. Remember back when some said that Hitler wasn't a threat and that those camps were just rumors. Of course we can't count on the French or Germans, But I do think that Great Britain should have taken the lead on this. But we did do the right thing, and we did it efficiently.

[Buckey]

Yeah.  Remember that when you B word about Iraq. 

414290[/snapback]

 

What's to B word about? The ever changing reasons (lies) why we invaded, all of which would have never been approved by the American People if we had the facts... or maybe the horrendous planning effort, or the fact that there is no end in sight, or could it be the 200 Billion Plus it's costing us?... We could have done Iran instead?... Nope, nothing to B word about...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What's to B word about? The ever changing reasons (lies) why we invaded, all of which would have never been approved by the American People if we had the facts... or maybe the horrendous planning effort, or the fact that there is no end in sight, or could it be the 200 Billion Plus it's costing us?... We could have done Iran instead?... Nope, nothing to B word about...

414315[/snapback]

 

I guess the mass graves, systematic mass killings never happened. And it was not about the Kurds vs. the Iraqis... it was about Hussein invading the regions surrounding countries with no end in site... a smaller version of Hitler if you will.

 

 

[SilverNRed]

I guess the mass graves, systematic mass killings never happened. And it was not about the Kurds vs. the Iraqis... it was about Hussein invading the regions surrounding countries with no end in site... a smaller version of Hitler if you will.

414324[/snapback]