Clinton Vows To End U.s. 'arrogance' As President

[Hagbard Celine]

So this means you don't have a FUCKING clue but you think she'll have the answers anyway!...Geeeezzzzzzz. The blind ignorant masses promoting...nothing? Cept a solcialist.

You didn't say anything in this post except that you think I don't have a clue. Well, opinions are like assholes. Discussion boards are full of them both!

[CSM]

LOL! No, no, no, not the Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys!

Hey, if you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question!

[Grumplestillskin]

What is lame about that??? Clinton did sell secrets to both those countries. That little factoid made him very popular as a diplomat (at least with the Chinese and North Koreans). The fact that he did as much as he dared to pull the teeth from the US military made him very popular with Europeans as did the fact that he seriously considered putting US troops under UN commnaders. All of those things and more made him popular amongst the other nations and all of those I consider to be selling the US down the tubes....


Yeah, I know, jingoistic patriotism and ethnocentric. My only possible retort will eventually end up as European hypocricy and arrogance..... There I just saved us both a bunch of typing.

He did no such thing. His officials an diplomats did those things (although from memory the Chinese thing involved spying?? Harldy his fault). I don't see anything wrong with him putting US troops under the auspices of the UN. Neither did your commanders. Just ask Mike New...

[CSM]

He did no such thing. His officials an diplomats did those things (although from memory the Chinese thing involved spying?? Harldy his fault). I don't see anything wrong with him putting US troops under the auspices of the UN. Neither did your commanders. Just ask Mike New...

Of course we disagree. HIS officials and diplomats under HIS direction did those things...and the Clinton administration most certainly did sell software to China that allowed them to make their subs quieter (an application that allowed for closer tolerances in machining the sub's props). Up until that time, the software was barred from sale to the Chinese. Clinton released the software for sale to them in a Presidential memo.

Putting US troops under the auspices of the UN IMO violates their oath and their contract. Plenty of MY commanders had a problem with it and many retired because of it....

[CSM]

Oh yeah, about Mike New; the kid got railroaded in 1996. It isn't over yet either:

http://www.mikenew.com/

It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I will say this: if you think the US military has trouble recruiting now, just wait until the Dems start sending US forces to places like Dafur!

[Grumplestillskin]

Oh yeah, about Mike New; the kid got railroaded in 1996. It isn't over yet either:

http://www.mikenew.com/

It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I will say this: if you think the US military has trouble recruiting now, just wait until the Dems start sending US forces to places like Dafur!

I know re New...court systems!

Why shouldn't US troops go to Dafur to peacekeep? You think US troops should only be used for war and not trying to keep regions stable?

[CSM]

I know re New...court systems!

Why shouldn't US troops go to Dafur to peacekeep? You think US troops should only be used for war and not trying to keep regions stable?

Should I use the Liberal talking points? Lets start with "Dafur is no direct threat to the US"! How's that?

Try this one: "Unless the US Congress declares war it would be an illegal war"!

Not enough,? How about this one: "Soldiers would die for nothing and entangle us in a civil war that the US could not win".

Hmmm....lets go for this one: "Such an effort only serves the military industrial complex....its all about money".

Any of this sound familiar yet? I got lots more!

[Mr. P]

You didn't say anything in this post except that I don't have a clue. Well, opinions are like assholes. Discussion boards are full of them both!

That's all I had to say, the rest I could have left out I guess.

[avatar4321]

Hey, I'm watching it go over in the form of the Iraq War in "mass never seen before" so cut the bull. Hillary is qualified, way more qualified than W. was, to be president. She's been an attorney, she's been first lady, she's even been a Senator. She knows politics and I have no doubt foreign relations will run more smoothly under her than they have for the last seven years.

So since I am practically an attorney does that qualify me to be President? Cause i could probably do better than anything she does.

And if she knows her politics so well, why does everyone dislike her?

[avatar4321]

She'll TALK to Iran--the most powerful country in the region. :duh:

I thought Israel was the most powerful country in the region. Iran is just the most oppressive country in the region.

[avatar4321]

Can't be any worse than "you are part of the axis of evil". After all, that is just soooo helpful...

The truth is the truth. If you wont see evil as it is, you can't defeat it.

[theHawk]

At the end of the Clinton administration, polls showed that the US ranked high in world opinion. After seven years of W. and Co. we rank low and we have nothing to show for it except for a bloated foreign debt, a middle east in shambles and a low worldwide opinion of us. That's all I'm saying.

And thats what's really important isn't it? What the world polls say.

Like a good little stereotypical liberal, you care more about appearance than substance. God forbid we have a President that does what's right for America, instead of fucking his own country over for the sake of foreign countries. Every other country out there has their own agenda and their own interests at heart, and rarely do those interests include spreading freedom and democracy around the world. But liberals would much rather cater to these thugs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Osama bin Laden than do what is necessary - recognize these corrupt and brutal regimes/leaders for what they are and take a stand against them. We have policies in place, such as the U.S. is not going to negotiate with terrorists. Because if we do we send a message that violence works and that the use of brute force over the weak and innocent can get you what you want. I don't know what it is in a liberal's mind that would make you believe otherwise. Perhaps deep down in your warped mind these thugs have some sort of legitimacy, and deserve to be heard, whether it be in diplomatic talks or their day in court. Now, maybe liberals just prefer to use the carrot over the stick, and there isn't anything wrong with that. But when history shows that such tactics do not work against brutal dictators, it makes one wonder how or why one would seek to continue to pursue such a course of action. The only logical answer is that you either want failure or you're just ignorant of such historical record. Which answer it is is actually irrelavant, since the consequences would be the same.

[avatar4321]

And thats what's really important isn't it? What the world polls say.

Like a good little stereotypical liberal, you care more about appearance than substance. God forbid we have a President that does what's right for America, instead of fucking his own country over for the sake of foreign countries. Every other country out there has their own agenda and their own interests at heart, and rarely do those interests include spreading freedom and democracy around the world. But liberals would much rather cater to these thugs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Osama bin Laden than do what is necessary - recognize these corrupt and brutal regimes/leaders for what they are and take a stand against them. We have policies in place, such as the U.S. is not going to negotiate with terrorists. Because if we do we send a message that violence works and that the use of brute force over the weak and innocent can get you what you want. I don't know what it is in a liberal's mind that would make you believe otherwise. Perhaps deep down in your warped mind these thugs have some sort of legitimacy, and deserve to be heard, whether it be in diplomatic talks or their day in court. Now, maybe liberals just prefer to use the carrot over the stick, and there isn't anything wrong with that. But when history shows that such tactics do not work against brutal dictators, it makes one wonder how or why one would seek to continue to pursue such a course of action. The only logical answer is that you either want failure or you're just ignorant of such historical record. Which answer it is is actually irrelavant, since the consequences would be the same.

Thats the major difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives focus on doing what is right and what works. And Liberals focus on what looks good. We want to get to the root of the problem, they want to make gestures that look like they are addressing the problem when all they are addressing are the symptoms.

[Hagbard Celine]

I thought Israel was the most powerful country in the region. Iran is just the most oppressive country in the region.

Israel doesn't have much power in the Arab world Avi. In fact, I'd wager that 99 out of 100 Arabs hate Israel. Israel definately has the most military strength, but there are other types of power.

So since I am practically an attorney does that qualify me to be President? Cause i could probably do better than anything she does.

And if she knows her politics so well, why does everyone dislike her?

No, being an attorney doesn't qualify you for the presidency. Living in and being as active as she was in the White House for eight years and being a US senator for one of the most powerful states in the union does though.

As far as your opinion that no one "likes" her, I don't know where that comes from. I think you're projecting your own opinions onto those in D.C.

[Hagbard Celine]

And thats what's really important isn't it? What the world polls say.

Like a good little stereotypical liberal, you care more about appearance than substance. God forbid we have a President that does what's right for America, instead of fucking his own country over for the sake of foreign countries. Every other country out there has their own agenda and their own interests at heart, and rarely do those interests include spreading freedom and democracy around the world. But liberals would much rather cater to these thugs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Osama bin Laden than do what is necessary - recognize these corrupt and brutal regimes/leaders for what they are and take a stand against them. We have policies in place, such as the U.S. is not going to negotiate with terrorists. Because if we do we send a message that violence works and that the use of brute force over the weak and innocent can get you what you want. I don't know what it is in a liberal's mind that would make you believe otherwise. Perhaps deep down in your warped mind these thugs have some sort of legitimacy, and deserve to be heard, whether it be in diplomatic talks or their day in court. Now, maybe liberals just prefer to use the carrot over the stick, and there isn't anything wrong with that. But when history shows that such tactics do not work against brutal dictators, it makes one wonder how or why one would seek to continue to pursue such a course of action. The only logical answer is that you either want failure or you're just ignorant of such historical record. Which answer it is is actually irrelavant, since the consequences would be the same.

Blah, blah, blah. I'd like for you to explain to me and the rest of the posters just how fucking "free" Iraq is right now. Opinion polls give a gauge of the opinions of the populace. If you don't think that's important in a so-called "republic" where our representatives are supposed to reflect the public's viewpoints then you're a retard and I can't help you.