Bush says larger Army!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 21 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]365447[/snapback]</div>

We could unilaterally disarm, disband the entire military and see what happens next. Oops, sorry, Clinton did that and look what happend on 9/11. He shrunk the military and intelligence services and we get bit** slapped by a bunch of Islamoterrorists. I guess some of us never learn from history. Maybe some sort of mushroom cloud or slow fizzle in one or more US cities will wake some of us up from a deep slumber?

And, I disagree with you entirely - we need a larger military - one that will evolve to meet current and future threats - kind of the way our military has morphed over the past quarter millenium.

Still would love to be able to read those memos that Sandy Berger destroyed..........

And didn't Monica just get some sort of advanced degree :lol: Obviously Clinton did not have his head in the sand totally :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 22 2006, 07:54 AM) [snapback]365602[/snapback]</div>

Clinton disarmed and disbanded the ENTIRE military? How'd they keep that out of the papers?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 22 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]365602[/snapback]</div>

No, more that some never read history:
Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...entagon.budget/

Furthermore, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress during most of Clinton's time in office (6 out of 8 years). One of their big initiatives was the balanced budget amendment.

You can't learn from history if you're ignorant of it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Dec 22 2006, 09:35 AM) [snapback]365608[/snapback]</div>

Why, that liberal media of course.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Walker1 @ Dec 22 2006, 04:18 AM) [snapback]365600[/snapback]</div>

Not quite for nothing. They're dying so that GM can continue to sell SUVs. America is addicted to oil and behaving exactly as any drug addict would behave: Turning to crime to support its habit.

Conservatives should be clamoring for Bush's impeachment, not for being a criminal (which he is) but for being an incompetent moron who has lost us this war for oil. All that blood and money dumped down the drain, and we didn't even get the oil we went over there for.

It's bad enough that kids have to die so their parents can put gas in their SUVs, but it's even worse when they died in vain because a moron is never going to be able to win a war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 22 2006, 09:25 AM) [snapback]365623[/snapback]</div>

Thank you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 22 2006, 08:58 AM) [snapback]365615[/snapback]</div>

And thank you. I forgot Clinton made no mistakes at all during his tenure while CEO of US of A. It was those big bad neo-cons.

And now that the Dems control both houses - we wait and see what they do, now obviously that they are in control. :lol: I do like how they are starting - putting some ding dong as Chairmen of the Intelligence Oversight - who could not even tell the difference between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda -- and this ding has been a member of this council for how many years - and now he is in charge... I already see our guard dropping and the bad guys smiling. I wonder who OBL would have voted for - Repubs or Dems :lol:

From my small perspective the only question is how many more Americans will die before we get critical mass on this issue here. Obviously 3,000 was not enough. Where are those Dems of years gone bye - FDR,
Truman, Kennedy, Scoop Jackson??? All gone - everyone - now we live with the remnants of the "Me-Generation" the flower children and what is left of their cortical functioning s/p drugs, etoh, etc, etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 21 2006, 06:25 PM) [snapback]365447[/snapback]</div>

I know what you're saying Pinto and basically agree. However with GW having his military adventures all over the globe, we need more people in the full time military. Now the proper answer is obvious, but in the meantime, I think GW's supporters should step up, he has a couple kids that could start the ball rolling.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 21 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]365447[/snapback]</div>

Upcoming US invasions of:

Iran
North Korea
Cuba
France
Quebec
Hawaii

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Dec 22 2006, 12:32 PM) [snapback]365692[/snapback]</div>

And he only has two years left...he is going to have to get going...the world must be reshaped into the form of The Bush Doctrine...attack now/talk, ah who needs to talk!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 22 2006, 07:54 AM) [snapback]365602[/snapback]</div>

I agree with the above:

During Clintons watch we had several terrorist attacks on our soil and he did nothing, they built up to 9/11 and Bush has done some thing... Just like the sen. that was sworn in using the Koran because he's musilum.

We are a very deversified country, we let all the imorgrants come over and practice what they believe in from religion to their way of life even their language. However if we tried to do that in their country we would be inprisoned or worse shot... Try and send the femminists over to Irag and let them preach their doctrine and way of life , just wait and see if they do not show up dead the next morning.

Pull the military out, When we start having more attacks dont do anything... As it will give the lefties some thing else to complain about. (we just turned the other cheek) If we give the terrorists our young daughters & wifes maybe they will like us better? NOT... The liberal ways sound good in conversation. but in real life it doesn't work on a grand scale and it has been proven in the past just look it up......

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Dec 22 2006, 03:29 PM) [snapback]365784[/snapback]</div>

I'm confused; so what you're saying is, shoot first and ask questions later...?

It's amusing that women have been mistreated "over there" for thousands of years...but now that we need their oil, you're really asking us to belive that we'd fight this battle over women's rights?

Seriously?

I'm just going to let those words ring out for a minute, to stress the absurdity of even bringing this point up.

C'mon, we all know it's about the oil, and making it so that we can "keep spending" as GWB has just suggested (even though we as Americans are actually pulling equity out of our homes and doing other things reflective of folks who are already spending more than they earn).

Please don't insult women by suggesting that this has ANYTHING to do with concern for our wellbeing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Dec 22 2006, 12:32 PM) [snapback]365692[/snapback]</div>

I could see the first three happening in the future if we get another president that has kahonis as big as Bush's, that is they can use them to protect the country and not use them on the Oval office..
As for France & Quebec? Theres nothing worth __________________. oh never mind I wont say it...

I really think if so many people do not like it here in the US, then MOVE to Canada, Europe or the middle east and live under their way of life. But please besure to write and tell us how you like it in 5 yrs....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Dec 22 2006, 12:42 PM) [snapback]365790[/snapback]</div>

I've met American draft dodgers who moved to Canada. Later (Carter administration? I'm not sure) they were granted blanket immunity and told they could return. None of them did (those I met, that is) because they loved Canada. It's a wonderful place. I didn't move there when Fargo winters became too much for me because the part of Canada I like best is difficult to travel from (Eastern B.C.: no all-weather airports) and Spokane worked out better for me. But Canada is much more civilized than the U.S. If some day I tire of travelling I might move there.

We won't invade Quebec, France, Cuba, or North Korea, because they have no oil. In a decade we may invade Canada for their water. We are depleting our non-renewable reserves of underground water at an obscene and unsustainable pace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Dec 22 2006, 12:42 PM) [snapback]365790[/snapback]</div>

Wth makes you think WE should move if we don't like it? Maybe WE think YOU should move to another country where everyone believes in domination. Frankly that is about the most retarded comment in this thread. The country is made up of indivivduals, we all have diffrent woldviews but to say I should move out of the country because our current administration is dominated by greedy SOBs who care nothing for the poor, middle class or the environment is assinine. No, I think I'll stay and put up one hell of a fight to bring back some of the same values that were in mind when Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights. Too bad they threw out some of the other Iroquois reccomendations...

 

I really think if so many people do not like it here in the US, then MOVE to Canada, Europe or the middle east and live under their way of life. But please besure to write and tell us how you like it in 5 yrs.... wink.gif

There are those of us who fight tooth and claw to make THIS country a better place. Then there are those who do nothing positive for their country but bitch because we don't all toe the party 'line', no matter how corrupt, irrational, greedy and self-centered the 'line' is. Telling those who don't agree with one's point of view to just move is about as disingenuous as ending a losing argument by playing the Hitler card. (no cute smiley face needed)

 

"Love it or leave it" is a line the war-supporters have been using for at least as long as I can remember. They tell us to love our country, but what they really mean is we should love the criminals who run our country.

Sorry, Jack, I have as much right to live here as you do, whether I love the gangsters in government or not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 23 2006, 12:19 AM) [snapback]365926[/snapback]</div>

Well I will whole heartedly agree with the Bold type, in regards to all parties. The point I was trying to make was after living in those countries for a while they would see not everything is peaches & cream there either..

You know another intresting fact is that France is 60% Muslim,

Islam in France:
Islam is the second largest religion in France after Roman Catholicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France

How France Has Fallen:
Muslim immigration has overwhelmed permissive French institutions

France is probably the worst affected of all western nations by immigration, since it is on the brink of losing its European identity to the insistent Muslims increasing in numbers within French borders. As they grow in population, they come to believe they can impose the will of Islam on the French people, who seem rather unconcerned with the transformation.

With a population of five million Muslims, France is holding a tiger by the ears. The threat of violence from radical Islamic elements cannot be far from politicians' minds. France should be seen as a cautionary tale of immigration run amok, and how quickly things get out of control.
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/fra...mmigration.html

We should look carefully and learn from the other countries mistakes, including our own before its to late.
We should also keep our military forces many & strong. to crush the infindels who oppose us by striking us on our own land.. :lol: :huh: :mellow:

 

The problem is, we don't build an armed force to sit idle and protect. We build them to invade. So in your words we should learn from other countries mistakes. Sumerians, the Greek and the Romans come to mind rather quickly. lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 22 2006, 01:29 PM) [snapback]365812[/snapback]</div>

I'm pretty sure Canada has some oil. They export more oil to the US than any other country.

How much oil did we get from Iraq before we invaded it? Where were they on the list of suppliers to the US?

The "all about oil" talk simplifies a complex issue ... that of access to strategic resources ... and makes a bumper sticker out of it. It is true that our economy is dependent on oil, and our lives as well. We need oil to grow our food, transport our goods, etc. But the obfuscation that happens when an issue is reduced to a bumper sticker is that people think we invaded Iraq to get their oil. We had open access to their oil before, but would not buy it. We embargoed them, as did the rest of the civilized world through the UN sanctions. We even had a special program to ensure that the dictator in Iraq could sell enough oil to feed his people, but he abscounded with the money. Even Iran will sell us oil, if we want to buy it. We don't. We get the majority of our oil today from non-middle east sources, with Canada, Mexico and Venezula topping the list, IIRC.

Oil is important, but we didn't invade Iraq to get their oil. It was available to us already. Why were the French against toppling Saddam? They were trading partners with Iraq just like we are with Saudi Arabia. The unsavory nature of our trading partners and the way they trample on their people's rights is reason enough to become energy independent. But it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. They sell, and we buy.





Ultimately, our interest in the middle east is about our strategic interests in the region. That's oil.

 

Very well summed up. I was trying to discuss this topic with a marine friend of mine and that is the conclusion we came to. It is very much like a chess game or a game of Risk. We are setting up our "pieces".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Dec 22 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]365932[/snapback]</div>

Better check your arithmetic. The population of France is around 60 million. If there are 5 million Muslims, as you state, that would put the percentage at a bit over 8%.

In addition, the vast majority of Muslims, like the vast majority of Christians, just want to live their lives, have a home and food and clothing and whatever luxuries they can manage to afford. You cannot judge a person's character by his professed religion.