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

[glockmail]

.....

I will say that of the current crop of Dems, she knows how to play the political assassination game better than the rest. She's definitely had more practice at it than the others.

.....

I'd say she plays the physical assassination game just as well. Just ask poor old Vince Foster.

[CSM]

Peacekeeping and going to war are two different things. So you are comparing apples and oranges...

Let me ask you this...if they are at peace already, what would be the point of deploying troops? If they aren't at peace, then you aren't "peace keeping" you are "intervening". If you are intervening, that means someone is going to shoot at you sooner or later and you would have to shoot back...unless you are UN and then you can't /wont shoot back. Of course both parties know this, so don't bother to shoot at the UN troops and just keep shooting at each other. When they are shooting at each other the UN troops aren't keeping the peace then either. Get it?

[glockmail]

Let me ask you this...if they are at peace already, what would be the point of deploying troops? If they aren't at peace, then you aren't "peace keeping" you are "intervening". If you are intervening, that means someone is going to shoot at you sooner or later and you would have to shoot back...unless you are UN and then you can't /wont shoot back. Of course both parties know this, so don't bother to shoot at the UN troops and just keep shooting at each other. When they are shooting at each other the UN troops aren't keeping the peace then either. Get it?

When the UN gets involved and the shit hits the fan they leave, leaving the weaker side to be slaughtered.

[Hagbard Celine]

good answer....insults aside....i now i understand....you believe hillary would negotiate with iran and that by talking to them and saying all the right things as her husband did they will change their behavior back to the way it was under bill and she will do for america what bill did and a return to that era would be a good thing ... got it.... as for bills policies....during his years in office america and her allies and interest were attacked several dozen times not sure his policies were as sound as you think nor were we as loved as you think.....the us has been hated for a long time.....

Yeah, but never in Europe. That's what we're seeing now after we gave the Bush administration the reigns for seven years. I just don't think it's wise to ignore the global community and go it alone. That never works for anyone.

[darin]

Yeah, but never in Europe. That's what we're seeing now after we gave the Bush administration the reigns for seven years. I just don't think it's wise to ignore the global community and go it alone. That never works for anyone.

It works for US. Nobody will protect Freedom like the USofA. The USofA is simply THE best country on the planet in terms of opportunity and the ability to kick ass if we so desire.

[Hagbard Celine]

You know NOTHING about islam. iran is run by a fundimentalist theocracy. Not rational people like other countries. They want to destroy the US. They have no respect for women and anything said to hellery will be to placate her until they are ready to move. Carrier groups in the gulf are a form of diplomacy. They simply say, don't mess in the gulf cause we will take action. Bush has repeatedly stated he wants to deal with iran diplomatically. If you want to extend an olive branch I suggest you try petting a rabid dog and see what that gets you.

Your "rabid dog" remark is cute, but I'd suggest looking in the mirror mr. red font. You're right, carrier groups in the gulf are the kind of aggressive, cowboy dipolomacy that we've seen out of Bush since the beginning. Earth to gaffey: IT DOESN'T WORK! If it worked, we'd see results, but we haven't during Bush's entire presidency. He acts militantly toward N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, etc. and they do nothing but defy him. You get further with people when you open a dialogue with them than you do when you punch them in the back of the head and treat them like children. Bush has no respect for foreign nations and that is why he has been and continues to be a failure at diplomacy.

They will not cease uranium enrichment. And the sanctions won't do shit. Even if they were strong sanctions russia and china would continue to do business with them. iran tried to get the US to backdown, they have never tried to negociate anything. They have a goal and they intend to reach that goal. Try talking to that rabid dog when you try to pet it.

Maybe they won't, but I think parking an armada off their coast is a reason FOR them to make a nuclear weapon rather than a deterrent. Put yourself in their shoes for one moment. What would you do if the US parked its military on your back door stoop?

Clinton sold out the country by giving nuclear support to north korea and allowing china to steal sensative rocket components. How do you think they managed that little trick of knocking out their old weather satelite. Thank clinton for that. Bush doctored nothing. Prove he doctored intelligence. Show me a legitimate site that proves this is a fact. You can't because its a liberal talking point that is thrown out everytime Bush's name is mentioned..

You're insane. If the Downing Street Memo was too far in the past for you to remember, here's the latest: Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_...igence_on_Iraq
Also: Report: Pre-War Intelligence 'Manipulated' http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...ics&id=5020327

As mentioned above, clinton was popular because he was selling out the country. All the lefties loved clinton. Bush won't do that, so they hate him. I suggest after you get done petting the rabid dog, you go read up on islam, your going to need it if your people get into power. Praying five times a day and all.

Clinton did not sell state secrets. He sold weapons systems to China. So what? You make stuff up and spin it to support your own POV nothing more. Stick with the "rabid dog" metaphor. It's fittingly hypocritical for someone who curses and posts in red font. And you're a moron if you really believe that anyone buys the "we're all going to be turned Muslim if the Democrats get the WhiteHouse" scare tactics. Your kind said the same thing back in the 80s when communism was the big ol' bogeyman that we were all supposed to be fearful of. With you there is no progression, just new talking points. Pfftt.

[glockmail]

Yeah, but never in Europe. That's what we're seeing now after we gave the Bush administration the reigns for seven years. I just don't think it's wise to ignore the global community and go it alone. That never works for anyone.

I don't think we meant to go it alone, dooya think? I mean, we worked with the UN for a long time with something like, what, 27?, resolutions, starting way before Bushco was in office. When push came to shove the UN weenied out, right?

[Hagbard Celine]

I don't think we meant to go it alone, dooya think? I mean, we worked with the UN for a long time with something like, what, 27?, resolutions, starting way before Bushco was in office. When push came to shove the UN weenied out, right?

The UN tried to avoid violent confrontation, which the Bush/admin seemed damned and determined to create. Regardless of what you think of the UN, when you take into account what a clusterf*ck Iraq is due to Bush's use of force, the UN seemed pretty wise in retrospect. If we had listened to the global community and pursued legal and other means of punishing Saddam, the middle east probably would not be such a mess today and considering the findings from every study made on the subject concluding that the Iraq war has actually created more terrorists than it has deterred terrorism, terrorism would be less of a problem and we would not have had more terrorist attacks worldwide since 2001 than we had before.

[glockmail]

The UN tried to avoid violent confrontation, which the Bush/admin seemed damned and determined to create. Regardless of what you think of the UN, when you take into account what a clusterf*ck Iraq is due to Bush's use of force, the UN seemed pretty wise in retrospect. If we had listened to the global community and pursued legal and other means of punishing Saddam, the middle east probably would not be such a mess today and considering the findings from every study made on the subject concluding that the Iraq war has actually created more terrorists than it has deterred terrorism, terrorism would be less of a problem and we would not have had more terrorist attacks worldwide since 2001 than we had before.

OK I'll bite. What "legal and other means", not simply to punish, but to stop the guy from supporting terrorists, attempting to assassinate US presidents, and from building and using WMD's?

[avatar4321]

Doing what is right is a lonely activity sometimes. Trust me, I know.

[Hagbard Celine]

OK I'll bite. What "legal and other means", not simply to punish, but to stop the guy from supporting terrorists, attempting to assassinate US presidents, and from building and using WMD's?

Well, we've found out since the invasion that Saddam was bluffing about everything. Evidence shows that he did not interact with al-Qaeda and that he did not have any on-going WMD programs. Sure, he gave terrorists passage throught his country, but so does Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Beginning to see a trend? If we had pursued sanctions and other diplomatic types of punitive measures we would not be in the mess we are in right now in Iraq. We just wouldn't be. It's that simple. And it's not like he came over here and tried to assassinate our president. H.W.Bush was in Iraq when that happened.

[avatar4321]

Well, we've found out since the invasion that Saddam was bluffing about everything. Evidence shows that he did not interact with al-Qaeda and that he did not have any on-going WMD programs. Sure, he gave terrorists passage throught his country, but so does Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Beginning to see a trend? If we had pursued sanctions and other diplomatic types of punitive measures we would not be in the mess we are in right now in Iraq. We just wouldn't be. It's that simple. And it's not like he came over here and tried to assassinate our president. H.W.Bush was in Iraq when that happened.

What exactly do you think Saddam was bluffing about?

[glockmail]

Well, we've found out since the invasion that Saddam was bluffing about everything. Evidence shows that he did not interact with al-Qaeda and that he did not have any on-going WMD programs. Sure, he gave terrorists passage throught his country, but so does Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Beginning to see a trend? If we had pursued sanctions and other diplomatic types of punitive measures we would not be in the mess we are in right now in Iraq. We just wouldn't be. It's that simple. And it's not like he came over here and tried to assassinate our president. H.W.Bush was in Iraq when that happened.

Evidence also shows that Saddam did have WMDs, and was making more. Evidence also shows that he was not simply allowing passage with terrorists, but harboring and training them as well. We obviously disagree with the relative weight of the evidence, but it is obvious that the President belived Saddam was a grave and present danger to the US and our allies.

There is also the matter of Saddam's attempt to assassinate an ex-US President, which would have been the first time in history that another country was able to hurt us in that way. Politically we don't know whatbthe fallout of that could have been if Saddam had been sucessful.

So assume for a moment that the President was correct on his assumptions. Im asking you again to humor me: What "legal and other means" would have been available, not simply to punish Saddam, but to stop him from supporting terrorists, attempting to assassinate US presidents, and from building and using WMD's?

[Gaffer]

Well, we've found out since the invasion that Saddam was bluffing about everything. Evidence shows that he did not interact with al-Qaeda and that he did not have any on-going WMD programs. Sure, he gave terrorists passage throught his country, but so does Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Beginning to see a trend? If we had pursued sanctions and other diplomatic types of punitive measures we would not be in the mess we are in right now in Iraq. We just wouldn't be. It's that simple. And it's not like he came over here and tried to assassinate our president. H.W.Bush was in Iraq when that happened.

Evidence from who? The MSM? There is now a lot more evidence that saddam WAS pursuing the weapons. That what he had was convoyed across the syria border. That he harbored and trained al queda and other terrorist groups, not just safe passage. Sanctions and punitive measures would have just continued to enrich the french, germans, and russians. Would have allowed terror operations to be launched from iraq and an even bigger war would have had to be fought.

[theHawk]

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.

Iraq is very free, to the point where its too free and there is much lawlessness. The only polls that matter are election ones. But oh yea I forgot, if Republicans get elected it was a fraud, if Dems get elected it was the will of the people. I can't help you if you're a retard and believe every election you lose is rigged. You also seem to have forgotten that the polls in April through May 2003 showed Americans by and far supported the war....anywhere form 60% to 80%.

You wouldn't be picking and choosing which polls to ignore and which to use to fit your political agenda would you?