You Really Have To Love This Guy!

mmarsh said:
Its simple, Osama was in Afganistan fighting against the Soviet Invasion. Reagan supplied weapons and CIA advisors to the Afgan Mujihadeen. If you get CNN international they are running a series just last week (you can probably catch it on reruns) on Osama. The interview several of the now-retired CIA case officiers that knew Osama in Afganistan. Its pretty interesting stuff. Its not at surprising that the Pakistanis, US and al Qaeda all deny this. Do you honestly expect that they are going admit that they were allies back in the day?
Click to expand...

I am not so sure they deny it, but rather choose not to speak about it - which is totally different. The reason for Reagan to support the Afghan Mujihadeen is simple, to prevent a far east state to turn under communist regime, however when the Soviets pulled out of the country, the US did as well, and who sat behind with more guns than Texas Pete?
 
Last edited:
SunBi

I'll grant you that the Reagan people never imagined the monster they let out of the box in Afganistan, but thats the point, they should have. Throughout history, when has arming religous fanatics to the teeth ever been a good idea? They would have known this had they studied their history better...
 
bulldogg said:
Liberal belly aching manure. Anecdotal evidence does not prove cause and effect.
Click to expand...

The evidence is hardly anecdotal, its a very a simple Timeline. Your accusation of 'Ancedotal evidence' (while providing no evidence of your own) seems like an excuse not to do any serious research. So I did it for you.

A. When was the Afgan War? 1979-1989
B. When did bin Laden Arrive in Afganistan? 1982.
C. When did the CIA start offering aid? End-1980.
D. Who was the POTUS during this time? Ronald Reagan.

Sources are below...

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bin_laden_comes_home_to_roost.html
Original link is broken had to use this one, but its the same MSNBC article.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Soviet_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Liberals have a right to "belly ache" because they are sick and tired of cleaning up after the many, many disasters made by conservatives. When you continually have to clean up after someone else's (Wars, terrorists, Debts, poor image abroad, bad economy, etc) see how much you like it.
 
Last edited:
MM makes a very good point along with Sunb!.

During Reagan's watch, the Afghan Mujaheddin were armed to the teeth and when the Russians pulled out, into this vacuum stepped the Mujaheddin. All that we had accomplished, was to arm them to the teeth and they set out to do what you would expect any group of religious fanatics to do ... they basically took over the country by force of arms.

Evidently history DIDN'T teach Reagan or his administration any lessons. Arming a religious group has never had any beneficial outcomes ... it always fails.

I would say that this decisions was one of the Great Statesman's failures, wouldn't you?
 
mmarsh,

1993 - WTC Bombing
1996 - Bombing of Khobar Military Complex
1998 - US Embassy Bombings
2000 - USS Cole

The only reaction Clinton took after any of those terrorists attacks against America was launching a few cruise missiles after the Embassy Bombings. He did nothing after Bin Laden declared war on the US. He had at least three chances to eliminate Bin Laden. He botched up Somalia. If that is what you call effective, I'd hate to see what you think ineffective is.
 
mmarsh said:
Senior Chief

Again you mention Clinton's personal failures. I'll grant you that, I wouldnt want my my daughter near him. Reagan and Bush policies have harmed America, but the USA didnt suffer any real harm because Clinton was sleeping around. And alot of his policies were good for America. Thats the fundimental difference, I (and most people) would rather have a 'immoral' man running the country well than a 'moral' men whose policies have hurt America. I use the term moral loosely. Look at Tom Delay (a Chief Clinton accuser), do you really want to take morality lessons from him?
...
Click to expand...

How dense are you?

Clintons failures had zero to do with Monica, Ze - f**king -ro!

Clinton was in office for four terrorist attacks and did nothing other than to fire a $1M missile up a camels butt. Had he of taken the initiative on any of the four attacks we might have avoided being attacked on 9/11/01. The plan in 1993 was to blow the base of the WTC and topple one tower into the other one, and as an added bonus the wreckage would have fallen on many buildings in the area and killed an untold number of Americans. The plan for 9/11 was started shortly after that attack. And again I state that Clinton did nothing (other than the afore mentioned BJ from his intern). His moral failures belong totally to him and his less than ethical wife. In reality Billary is dirtier than Bill ever thought of being.

How much of an investigation did Billy bring off? You tell me, you seem to want to defend him.

The Cooler King said:
mmarsh,

1993 - WTC Bombing
1996 - Bombing of Khobar Military Complex
1998 - US Embassy Bombings
2000 - USS Cole

The only reaction Clinton took after any of those terrorists attacks against America was launching a few cruise missiles after the Embassy Bombings. He did nothing after Bin Laden declared war on the US. He had at least three chances to eliminate Bin Laden. He botched up Somalia. If that is what you call effective, I'd hate to see what you think ineffective is.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see the response to this. He is centralizing on the policy's not on the defense of the country. FWIW, I don't believe it was more than one cruise missile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The islamic terrorists weren't a huge concern back then since bosnia and kosovo was where the primary problems lay for the administration at the time. The earlier bombing of the WTC was overshadowed a few years later by the oklahoma city bombings which was perpetrated by a white supremist. I'm not into the details, but the military wasn't weak back then. Clinton approved reduction in defense spending since we didn't need as much strategic stuff that was left over from the cold war. Any president would have reduced the defense spending after the USSR collapsed, congress would mutiny if he didn't. But we still had all of our key military assets and the programs like the f22 were still intact.
 
Senior + Cooler King

Clintons failures had zero to do with Monica, Ze - f**king -ro!

Lets be honest, That is not what most GOP say. Whenever you bring up the Clinton Presidency the first words out of their mouths is "Monica, sex, Monica, sex, Monica". Even your first comment was the 'immorality' of Clinton. Lets not beat around the bush, we all know to what you were referring to. Most GOP cannot help to Clinton WITHOUT bring up monica. To them having sex with monica WAS his greatest failure.

As I already stated, OBL wasn't behind the first WTC. That was Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Clinton was EFFECTIVE as he put him, and all those involved in jail. OBL wasnt even on the rader yet, the CIA thought he was a spoiled Saudi brat at the time.

You are measuring effectiveness only by the killing Bin Laden. All the anti-terror experts agree that if he were killed there would be 100 more to take his place. And speaking of killing bin Laden, Clinton certainly tried to have bin Laden killed on 3 occasions, they failed. The cruise missilie strike missed him by 1 hour.

But although Clinton didnt kill him he WAS EFFECTIVE in thawarting his plans. He destroyed his poison gas factories. He put pressure on the Saudis to expel him (not an easy task considering who his Dad was). He got all the world financial institutions to freeze his assets (also not an easy task, due to banking laws in certain countries). He forced Sudan to kick out bin Laden forcing him back to Afganistan. Clinton stopped al-Qaedas plot to blow up the 14 Phillippean airliners. And finally while he was in Afganistan he had to keep looking over his shoulder because there was a price on his head. He couldnt go out too long in the openn in daylight, he could use the telephone, he had to keep a small army to protect him.

What more could Clinton have done in 1990's? You tell me. Remember invading Afganistan was not an option at the time, Clinton would never have been able to justify it. Its very easy to Monday night quarterback Clinton after the game is over.

The bigger culprit is Bush, (which of course nobody will admit to) because he was warned several times about bin Laden AND DID NOTHING. It wasn't Clinton that got the CIA memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". And even after 9-11 he still doing nothing. In fact he has stated he doesnt care about Bin Laden.

Thanks, but I'll take Clinton any day of the week.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Senior + Cooler King

Clintons failures had zero to do with Monica, Ze - f**king -ro!

Lets be honest, That is not what most GOP say. Whenever you bring up the Clinton Presidency the first words out of their mouths is "Monica, sex, Monica, sex, Monica". Even your first comment was the 'immorality' of Clinton. Lets not beat around the bush, we all know to what you were referring to. Most GOP cannot help to Clinton WITHOUT bring up monica. To them having sex with monica WAS his greatest failure.

As I already stated, OBL wasn't behind the first WTC. That was Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Clinton was EFFECTIVE as he put him, and all those involved in jail. OBL wasnt even on the rader yet, the CIA thought he was a spoiled Saudi brat at the time.

You are measuring effectiveness only by the killing Bin Laden. All the anti-terror experts agree that if he were killed there would be 100 more to take his place. And speaking of killing bin Laden, Clinton certainly tried to have bin Laden killed on 3 occasions, they failed. The cruise missilie strike missed him by 1 hour.

But although Clinton didnt kill him he WAS EFFECTIVE in thawarting his plans. He destroyed his poison gas factories. He put pressure on the Saudis to expel him (not an easy task considering who his Dad was). He got all the world financial institutions to freeze his assets (also not an easy task, due to banking laws in certain countries). He forced Sudan to kick out bin Laden forcing him back to Afganistan. Clinton stopped al-Qaedas plot to blow up the 14 Phillippean airliners. And finally while he was in Afganistan he had to keep looking over his shoulder because there was a price on his head. He couldnt go out too long in the openn in daylight, he could use the telephone, he had to keep a small army to protect him.

What more could Clinton have done in 1990's? You tell me. Remember invading Afganistan was not an option at the time, Clinton would never have been able to justify it. Its very easy to Monday night quarterback Clinton after the game is over.

The bigger culprit is Bush, (which of course nobody will admit to) because he was warned several times about bin Laden AND DID NOTHING. It wasn't Clinton that got the CIA memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". And even after 9-11 he still doing nothing. In fact he has stated he doesnt care about Bin Laden.

Thanks, but I'll take Clinton any day of the week.
Click to expand...

It sounds like it's you that can't let go of the Monica thing. Bill has been and always will be a low life when it comes to fidelity with his wife, but the she is no angel either.

I have edited out my comments because the whiner has misconstrued my comments. Typical of a leftist type person.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Is this how you think you can win a debate? Insults, a total lack of respect, and the use of CAPS LOCKS to make your point? This debate is over, you lose.

I don't think its me that needs a education.

3..2..1.. "Report".
Click to expand...

How can I lose something that hasn't been debated? You have hurled insults in your own posts.

Where do you get your U.S. political and anti-terrorism information? I have a pretty good source. Your facts are skewed by your political beliefs as are mine, but my information is based on facts. Yours is based on speculation.

What I see is someone that knows they are beat and starts the victory chant amiss.
 
Must be something in the water the DoD gave us to drink because I see it the exact same way Senior Chief.
 
bulldogg said:
Must be something in the water the DoD gave us to drink because I see it the exact same way Senior Chief.
Click to expand...

People that are not looking at the situation through some kind of colored glasses do see it the way we do, but then we have more actual facts to base our opinions on that come from other than the liberal media.

I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong!
 
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."

Ronald Reagan

So true.
 
That's his personal life. I don't want to know about my leader's sex life and frankly, I don't care. But what I do care about is when my President commits an act of perjury. How can you trust a leader who lies under oath? Now that is immorality. And in the midst of all this, the United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed. So Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike against a plant that was supposedly producing chemical weapons and authorized a halfhearted attempt to eliminate Bin Laden. That is how he responded to the murder of 224 people, 12 of which were his own citizens. Yeah, Clinton was real though on terror...

The pair of cruise missile attacks could have possibly be done just to take the attention away from the impeachment trial. I would hope that the President of the United States wouldn't do such a thing especially after lying under oath. Whether or not Clinton used this military action to draw attention away from his trial is debatable but the public certainly thought that was the reason for the strikes. Now if Clinton hadn't lied about the Lewinsky scandal in the first place, the impeachment trial never would have taken place, and the public would have seen his missile strikes as justifiable actions. Clinton would have gained the public support and a invasion of Afghanistan might have been backed by the American people. Now even if the people were opposed to military operations in Afghanistan, Clinton should have went ahead with it anyway because it was the right thing to do. But Clinton does not contain the intestinal fortitude to stand up and do the right thing even though everyone is against it.

Clinton did not put everyone responsible for the WTC bombings in jail. They didn't catch a fellow by the name of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. You might have heard of him before. The mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

When the USS Cole was attacked, Clinton again took no action. His Presidency was comming to a close and he was too worried about the Arabs and the Israelis so he just passed the buck. This is yet another example of his weak leadership (and that's giving him too much credit for even mentioning his name and leadership in the same sentence).

The CIA tried to kill Bin Laden and most likely would have been successful if it wasn't for Clinton. There are three occasions when we had OBL in our sights, literally, and all three missions were called off by the White House. Now I'm not talking about firing a cruise missile at a base and praying for the best. The Predator drones actually transmitted live footage of Bin Laden back to CIA HQ.

Clinton didn't stop the Al-Qaeda plot to blow up the Philippine Airlines. The plot was foiled when Abdul Hakim Murad accidentally started a fire in his apartment when mixing chemicals to build a bomb. In the apartment, the Philippine athorities found Ramzi Yousef's computer containing files with the entire operation planned out.

The difference between Bush and Clinton is simple: When America was attacked, Clinton did not take any action. Bush did.
 
No, the use of a male pronoun following a conversation wherein TWO males were being discussed leaves it very open and unclear. To me its obvious you mean Bush.
:)
Seriously.
 
Mod Warning

It's time to issue a general warning here. You know who you are so, correct your behavior or we'll be forced to do it for you. Specifically, stop any personal attacks. If you find yourself wanting to call another member stupid, a moron, or an idiot, stop. Police yourselves and save the staff some work, save yourself from getting official warnings or worse. There is more than one guilty party in this thread. Look back at your posts and change the tone accordingly. No need to change your opinion, just some of the words that have been used to express it.
That's it gents, clean it up or we'll have to. We're getting tired of having this thread reported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top