If Bill Clinton could run in this election?

[gardenweasel]

not just the u.s,THE WORLD believed that saddam had wmds...and because the u.n. dragged their feet and gave him years to hide or dispose of them doesn`t mean they weren`t there...thanks to his pals and cohorts in the u.n......the crooked,useless u.n...


we had 12 years of "debate and discussion" and it went nowhere....u.n. resolutions repeatedly violated......

and as far as the u.n. is concerned,any suggestion that the u.s. ignore threats in favor of seeking u.n. permission to preemptively defend our country is ludicrous...we know that now....

.. our government has a constitutional obligation to defend the u.s. against the threat of terrorists and tyrannical dictators.....and if you check,you`ll find that most democrats voted to go into iraq..including john kerry and john edwards........ there is no obligation to consult the u.n.....and we now know that the u.n. will do nothing...so,it`s a moot point.... .


we acted because we felt a threat....and because the france`s,germany`s and russia`s of the world didn`t give a damn whether five or ten 9/11`s happened...as long as their cash cow was kept in his pen...

n.korea fooled the world....now iran sees that the u.n. is a straw man.....

forgive us for not allowing europe to run our foreign policy for us... maybe if europe had the gumption to exercise a little preemption,hundreds of thousands might have been saved in ww1 and 2....

the unfortunate part of this equation is that we may never know what saddam did or didn`t have..or whether or not we may have circumvented some sort of catastrophe......thanks to the u.n.`s politics and impotence....

as far as our meddling goes,i`d rather let the governments of said middle eastern countries decide whether they wish to deal with the u.s. or they don`t..not allow the radical islamists to speak as though they are the united voice of all muslims.....nobody bitched the last several times americans took up arms and
sacrificed the blood of our youth iin the defense of muslims (Bosnia,
Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).....

yeah,i know,the governments are all u.s. puppets...and it`s about the oil...


no,of course they aren`t all puppets...and yes,it is about the oil...the middle east and the u.s. have a symbiotic realtionship regarding oil that benefits both parties...the middle east is important not only to the u.s. economy,but to the world`s economy as well.....

and please stop blaming all the middle eastern problems on "the great satan"...it is embarrassing...and condescending... i agree that it`s sad and pathetic that many muslims have to live in squalor under savage
dictatorships.... i am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.....it`s sad that these same "puppet governments" that "belong to the u.s."" breed hatred for the U.S. in their religious
schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.....there`s a contradiction...

whether invading iraq was the right thing to do,we may never know for sure....that saddam is gone cannot be considered a bad thing.....but radical islamicists will never allow iraq a chance at self rule....at some sort of chance at self determination...no one seems to be concerned about that....why?



it`s also sad that no other Arab country
will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to the palestinians.....these rich oil barons....sheiks.....it`s much easier to hate israel.....self help is hard work...



and as far as religions are concerned there`s a small difference...in the u.s.,you can choose whatever religion you wish to observe...with "radical" islam,if you decide to observe anything but their religion,there`s an excellent chance you`ll be murdered...along with your family...and your church will be blown up...just happened yesterday,as a matter of fact...christian churches in iraq,i believe...

the west isn`t cutting people`s head`s off...they aren`t killing people because of religious intolerance...


i don`t think muslims are evil.....that`s ridiculous....but the "radical" element of the religion is mired in age old customs,intolerance and as we see everyday,violence....

many young muslims,i`m sure, would love to observe and celebrate their religion in the 21st century...in a more contemporary manner...

WE stopped burning witches hundreds of years ago....

but,the argument in many parts of the"radical" muslim world is whether it`s in bad taste to behead fellow muslims who do commercial work for the new iraqi government....

helllooo? ...excuse me?...can anyone picture a similar headline here? ...

"Americans Debate Christian Basis For Beheading Middlle Easterners!!!!"......

in some parts of the the middle east, this is a serious discussion.....that`s not scary?...bizarre?...uncivilized?

"radical" islam is truly stuck in the dark ages... it's true that you can dig up ancient records of violence in all religions... but I see nearly constant contemporary islamist violence....
intentionally directed at women and children and the honestly innocent....

it seems to me almost insane...

every human on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding cultures.... but,it seems that the "radical" islamists do not.

....my best gambling buddy at work is egyptian....and he is utterly appalled by what is perpetrated in the name of islam...

and please note that i italicize "radical" in my comments...i don`t mean to denegrate peaceful,truly god loving muslims...as i said,my friend is a practicing muslim...and he is,imo,the salt of the earth...


we are not at war with islam. but the most radical elements within the muslim world are convinced that they are at war with us.....

but their enmity is not just directed against us. they also mean to hijack islam itself and to destroy 13 centuries of islamic civilization. we are not in a war between two civilizations. we are fighting an enemy of two civilizations.

we won`t agree...that`s fairly obvious...i`ll give you the last word....

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"How were the US defeated in Vietnam while possessing overwhelming man-power, technology and funds? Effectively terrorism."

There was never a possiblity of being defeated militarily and terrorism had squat to do with it. It was simply an unpopular and and unfounded war. The reason we withdrew was because of the unpopluarity of it from the homefront.

"Firstly I'd suggest that 99.9999% of Islamic people simply want to get on with their lives as peacefully as possible...You make it sound as tho these "good" Muslims are in the minority!!"

Then may I ask you if these 99.999% want peace why is it they can't contol or aid in irradicating the .0001 that don't want it???

 

[AR182]

i find it pretty amusing that people here think it would be a slam dunk that clinton would automatically beat bush or any other candidate if he ran in this election.

the first question that i would have....is ross perot going to be running also in this election ?

i know clinton didn't get more than 50% of the vote in 1992 & am pretty sure he didn't get more than 50% of the vote in 1996.so what makes people think clinton is a guarantee winner in this election.

i know that people look at ex-presidents more favorably once they are out of office.....ie...jimmy carter... but clinton has never shown that he can get more than 50% of the vote.

he may but it would not be the slam dunk that some people tend to think.

 

[kosar]

There was never a possiblity of being defeated militarily and terrorism had squat to do with it. It was simply an unpopular and and unfounded war. The reason we withdrew was because of the unpopluarity of it from the homefront.

Dogs,

Depending how you look at it, they *did* defeat us either militarily or via terroristic methods and probably most accurately, some combination. There really aren't many more choices. It definitely wasn't because of anti-war sentiment back home. How many years did we have to win that war? What was the ratio of N. Vietnamese killed to Americans killed? 10-1 or something? And how close did we come to 'winning'?

Just because we had the best weapons, equipment, etc didn't mean anything in that war. Just like Russia in Afghanistan. If you leap into a war where you don't understand the first thing about the enemy, the terrain, the culture, the mores and you don't care to look into any of that, you get a Vietnam. Or on a much lesser(for the time being) scale, you get an Iraq.

 

[MrChristo]

gw...I do agree with a lot of the things you are saying, and I'm certainly not singling out the US as opposed to the coalition or any other Western force....But again, my point is what now??
What do you do next time there is a 9/11? (And I suspect there will be.)
Who do we invade then?
Where does it stop?

and please stop blaming all the middle eastern problems on "the great satan"...it is embarrassing...and condescending

Is that bit directed at me? Sorry, but you've lost me here.

The 'puppet' governments were INITIALLY puppets...were INTENDED to be puppet, but unfortunately the puppets turned into real boys didn't they. They took the $$ and power and went off on their own little agenda's.

In the US you are free to choose? What about the 26 people since 1991 who 'chose' to get/perform an abortion in the US and were murdered by Christian 'extremists'?..The 177 cases of arson and bombings....the 554 Anthrax threats/deliveries in the last 3 years?
What kind of God do they worship?

Sure, of course "Radical" Islam is entrenched in the Dark Ages....That's why it's RADICAL!! Most things you find that are radical are well, just that!!
Again, I ask...So what? (I don't mean that in an uncaring way...I simply mean it WILL continue to happen, whether Iraq is occupied or Iran is invaded, or Afganistan is taken over, or whatever).
It's not 'almost' insane...It's absolutely insane***....It's RADICAL.

every human on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding cultures...

Surely you don't believe that?! Serbia, (former) Yogoslavia..the entire Balkan region!!...They've been fighting for 100's of years. Have they EVER developed a natural, harmonious equilibrium? Certainly not. Why do minoity groups live together in bunched up areas?...hey, both of our esteemed Heads of State are effectively campaigning for the 'abolition' of homosexuality!! Equilibrium? I think not.

You're right, we won't agree. I just hope that someone there has some idea what they are intending to achieve by all of this.
Because, in my mind, there is no end in sight, and I can really see things spiralling further and further out of control.


*** Anyway, who's to say their core belief's are wrong? Are we not insane for killing ourselves with tabacco, alchohol, processsed foods, mobile phones, high tension electricity wires, aluminium-based deodorants......etc....etc.....
I, of course, realise that lopping another human's head off is graphic and somewhat barbaric...yet it's perfectly acceptable for us to kill each other in these more subtle, not so graphic ways?.....Sorry, just a silly thought!

You "hate" them because you think they are uncivilised, medievil monsters...They "hate" you because you are a capatilist pig and your country (and allies) have trampled their land and ridiculed their way of life for 50 years and counting.
This is WHAT THEY BELIEVE. Right or wrong...and we aren't going to change that with force....Same way as they aren't going to convince you that your way of life is 'wrong' or 'un-holy'.

As i said, the one thing we do agree on is that this thing doesn't deteriorate too far, or we may not have to worry about our chemically induced liver failures or lung cancers

And, thanks Kosar for explaining that better than I could!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The only reason that war wasn't won in weeks was CHINA and their close proximity to N Vietnam (70 miles)
If not for them we could have leveled N Vietnam in weeks.--but we had no leverage of that possibilty on the North because of their ties with China.
It was a war we shouldn't have been in the 1st place, the only parralles I see in Iraq is you have borders Ira- Syria like N.V and S.V that are havens and they can go to and fro. Tough to fight people that can run to saftey. Fortunately Pakistan and Saudi are 2 less.

 

[gardenweasel]

mr c.....the "what now" point is well made and well taken..

i wish i had the answer... if george bush is the problem,and with that i don`t agree,the situation has an excellent chance of changing in november....

i really doubt that anything changes with kerry...maybe i`m wrong...the terrorist war with the u.s. pre-dates bush and iraq....

as far as a more moderate voice in the arab world.....a leader to step forward .....to try and ease tensions and find some sort of stability....it won`t happen...it can`t happen...it won`t be allowed to happen...


all we need to do is think back to anwar sadat...it`s a death sentence for any influential arab leader to step forward and proactively seek moderation,change and peaceful co-existence with the west and israel..


"what now?"....that,my friend,is the issue in a nutshell...well said.

 

[kosar]

The only reason that war wasn't won in weeks was CHINA and their close proximity to N Vietnam (70 miles)
If not for them we could have leveled N Vietnam in weeks.--but we had no leverage of that possibilty on the North because of their ties with China.
It was a war we shouldn't have been in the 1st place, the only parralles I see in Iraq is you have borders Ira- Syria like N.V and S.V that are havens and they can go to and fro. Tough to fight people that can run to saftey. Fortunately Pakistan and Saudi are 2 less.

The only way that war could have been 'won in weeks' is by nuking them. Is that what you mean?

I don't think the actual prosecution of the war in Iraq is that similar to Vietnam all that much, and i've said that before. But the neglect in preparation(ie..understanding your enemy etc) and unwillingness or inability to foment a viable exit strategy prior to invading is very similar.

I think the mechanics and problems we face in Iraq are more in line with the USSR-Afghanistan situation.

 

[gardenweasel]

and let me add....

as far as the insanity of processed foods,tobacco and cell phones vs having your head sawed off????????..lol

and the theological and intellectual debate regarding whether it`s o.k. to decapitate one`s muslim brothers?...

..what can i say....i`m just shaking my head at that one...the head that`s still thankfully attached to my shoulders...

the contradiction i spoke of was the strange dichotomy regarding the penchant for all these american puppet governments in the middle east to espouse the most violent and anti-western propaganda and dogma in their mosques and schools to undermine their benefactors...

and the comparison of the religious right`s admitted insanity regarding abortion....in the united states...

with muslim extremist expansion and violence vs christians and jews and basically anybody that is considered a non-believer world-wide is kind of like comparing the common cold to the ebola virus....

the phillipines....nigeria...kosovo....indonesia and east timor...the sudan....kashmir....ethiopia and eritrea....the u.s....uzbekistan...

increasing anti-semitic and anti-christian(frankly anti-everybody else) violence increasing in france,germany,the netherlands,spain,italy....all nations in which muslim population growth is exploding....


basically,all over the world...

i`m sorry,but i have to provide a little context here...

 

[kosar]

i find it pretty amusing that people here think it would be a slam dunk that clinton would automatically beat bush or any other candidate if he ran in this election.

the first question that i would have....is ross perot going to be running also in this election ?

i know clinton didn't get more than 50% of the vote in 1992 & am pretty sure he didn't get more than 50% of the vote in 1996.so what makes people think clinton is a guarantee winner in this election.

i know that people look at ex-presidents more favorably once they are out of office.....ie...jimmy carter... but clinton has never shown that he can get more than 50% of the vote.

he may but it would not be the slam dunk that some people tend to think.

AR,

When your opponent, such as Bush 1 in 1992, gets 37% of the general vote, and 31% of the electoral college vote it's not really that crucial to get 50% of the general population vote. And Bush 1 was a reasonably popular incumbent war hero who oversaw a successful war and 37% was all he could muster against Clinton? Yes, Perot was a factor, but Clinton still would have won with or without Perot in the mix.

Now contrast that with today, if he was running against Bush 2. A president with dismal approval ratings, who is in the midst of this Iraq thing, if anything has a negative milatary record, had 9/11 on his watch, etc. Clinton would destroy Bush. Not necessarily some other candidates the republicans could offer, but DEFINITELY Dubya.

 

[Chanman]

I too don't know about Clinton destroying Bush. I don't think ppl would want him in charge w/this terrorist threat. djv said Clinton took the blame for Somalia. Maybe so, but I don't recall ever seeing that in the media. djv also said it was more the fault of the General in Charge instead of Clinton. Again this goes back to the President or Commander- in- Chief. I think the military would rather have Bush than Clinton. At least they can wear their uniforms during White House functions.

SCRANTON, United States (AFP) - Riding the wave of his four-day presidential nomination gala, John Kerry hit the campaign trail again, challenging Republicans on their home turf issues of values and national security.

Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, John Edwards, were accompanied by both their families, as well as Hollywood heart throb Ben Affleck -- doing a bit of goodwill stumping.
Earlier, their bus convoy pulled over at a Wendy's fast food restaurant for a photo opportunity lunch that provided an awkward moment.

Spotting a group of US Marines, Kerry, who has made his Vietnam War service a cornerstone of his campaign, went over to chat. The Marines, who all turned out to be staunch Bush reporters, were not impressed.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one of them told reporters afterwards. "I'm 100 percent against" Kerry, he said. "We support our commander-in-chief 100 percent."...

I could be wrong but thats my feelings. Also think ppl would be disappointed w/the economy not reflecting his previous terms in office.

 

[AR182]

kosar,

it's true bush 1 had a high approval rating during desert storm,however his popularity went down dramatically after the war.

i didn't like bush 1 as president & am glad that clinton beat him. i thought that bush 1 was too out of touch with the people, as witnessed by his blunder in the supermarket during his re-election campaign.

but perot was a republican & definitely took the votes away from bush 1 in '92, not clinton.

without perot, imo bush 1 would have won '92 pretty easily.the american public was hesitant to vote for another gov. from a small southern state.

don't get me wrong. i'm glad that clinton won, but bush 1 would have won that election if perot didn't run.


as far as clinton vs. bush 2 is concerned i didn't say that bush would have beaten clinton.

i just don't think that it would have been the slam dunk that everybody else thinks.

it seems that people have been underestimating bush 2 since he has been in public service.

imo that is a mistake. bush 2 as a man is well liked by the american public, while imo clinton as a man is not.

but we will never know who would win any more than we would know how clinton would fare vs. reagan or for that matter george washington.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Now Matt surely you know me better than to advocate nuclear weapons except in most extreme of situations.
Hanoi could have been leveled in a few days days with conventional weapons. I think after that they would have got message to leave South Vietnam alone.Also I think that South Viet nams reported quest for freedom was blown way out of portion by the U.S. -----My biggest gripe on war. My reasoning is after training them and giving them total air superiority they were reluctant to fend for themselves after we left. They had the firepower power to dominate just not the will power.

 

[MrChristo]

and let me add....

as far as the insanity of processed foods,tobacco and cell phones vs having your head sawed off????????..lol

and the theological and intellectual debate regarding whether it`s o.k. to decapitate one`s muslim brothers?...

..what can i say....i`m just shaking my head at that one...the head that`s still thankfully attached to my shoulders...

.

....Yeah, sorry! Was being a bit flippant with that bit!...As I said, just one of those funny thoughts at the time (that probably should have stayed just that, a thought! :lol: )

 

[kosar]

Now Matt surely you know me better than to advocate nuclear weapons except in most extreme of situations.
Hanoi could have been leveled in a few days days with conventional weapons. I think after that they would have got message to leave South Vietnam alone.Also I think that South Viet nams reported quest for freedom was blown way out of portion by the U.S. -----My biggest gripe on war. My reasoning is after training them and giving them total air superiority they were reluctant to fend for themselves after we left. They had the firepower power to dominate just not the will power.

I don't think there's any way that North Vietnam would have gotten any message no matter what we did. And certainly not in weeks. Some wars, no matter what technological advantages we might have or had, are simply not winnable.

I totally agree that the necessary underlying foundation of motivation and support regarding South Vietnamese troops was not there and that we were fighting for, and dying for and destroying/dividing our own country back home for a country that really didn't care much either way.

lol- and I wasn't 'advocating' nuclear weapons.