Posted: 12/22/2006 12:48:01 PM EDT
|
Submitted for your approval...a bit I found at another site: Why did Republicans second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run? "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." -Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and acompelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99 "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy You can't do things without the support of other nations." -Representative toomy Delay (R-TX) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an definitive exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush 4/6/99 Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform? "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam will be nothing next to Kosovo." -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99 "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years. Horrible, just horrible." -Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missiles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missiles." -Senator Inhofe (R-OK) "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today." -Representative toomy Delay (R-TX) "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag." -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 Why didn't they support our president in a time of war? "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is, okay?" -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem, not mine." -Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) "The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president." -Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) "You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative toomy Delay 4/4/99(R-TX) "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) "For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce" -Representative toomy Delay (R-TX) Why did they blame America first? "Bombing a sovereign nation with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." -Representative toomy Delay (R-TX) "Once the bombing commenced, I think that's when Milosevic will unleash his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really starts" -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode" -Representative toomy Delay (R-TX) "America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country" -Pat Buchanan (R) "These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton." -Michael Savage "This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals." -Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation." -Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) "By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia." -Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media And something that puts it all into perspective - from a 1999 Slate article: "Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time." What do you guys think? |
|
This sounds like what was going on with Kosovo back in '99. You know, I've been wondering about this too, because back in '99, I remember the Rs being the doves and the Ds being the hawks. I knew something was off back then and saw the roles get reversed more recently with Iraq, among other things. You have a legitimate point. I think that support for one, the other, or both, are all politically motivated to some degree or another rather than for good, solid reasons. Someone should really develop some kind of doctrine for the use of military force. Would America go to war and risk having many thousands or even tens of thousands killed for Taiwan? South Korea? Japan? Any of the European countries? With this in mind, perhaps the Bush Doctrine is wrong and we should go back to using the purely reactive military doctrine favored by this country historically as opposed to the more proactive approach favored by the Bush Admin. How would history have judged Franklin Roosevelt had he hit Japan before Pearl Harbor even took place... ...or had the French, British, Dutch, Czechoslovaks, Poles, Soviets, Yugoslavs, and Belgians hit the Germans and Italians in the fall of 1938? |
You're an island of reality in an ocean of diarhea. Personally, I think that the only thing that can really pull this country out of the deep shit it's in is to put aside all that "we're right and they're wrong...no matter what we or they're actually saying" mentality and instead follow a course of action that's straightforward, proactive, and true. A good plan of action is a good plan of action--regardless of who it's coming from. Not everything the Republicans say is right...just like everything the Democrats say isn't wrong. And, vice versa. What I've seen in recent years, from both sides, is really nothing short of fascism. |
I think.. Oh for crying out loud.. Don't you people ever quit.. The election has been over for more than a month and the "anti-Republicans" won thanks to troll posts like this... All the marginally competent delusional thinkers are going to look at a post like this and feel vindicated for their non-vote or libertarian vote.. I seriously doubt that we are going to see you in here with any damming posts about the Democrats... |
|
If you're trying to make the point that politicians change their positions as soon as they achieve power then you are right. If you are implying that the Republicans are less honest and trust worthy than the Democrats then you are wrong. It should be equally notable that the rhetoric coming from the Democrats and their spokesmouths now is the polar opposite of what they were saying when Clinton attacked Iraq. Politicans and pundits play politics with issues of national and international importance. That's what they do. When their side isn't in the White House then they rag on the president. When their side is in the White House then they support the president. Politicians are powermad liars and theives. Party affiliation has no impact on that. |
|
both dems and repubs need to learn the conservative lesson that you stay out of foreign entanglements kosovo, somalia, lebanon, iraq, monrovia, ethiopia, vietnam, korea, taiwan.... and so on and so forth.. i do not include afghanistan, nor gulf war I. but the whole world was for g-war-i and a-stan basically declared war on the US through al-quaeda... we should stay out of it all and let the heathens rage and hack each other to death.. its the way its always been and always will be.. |
97 posts - and those I have seen have all been nothing but one-sided, slanted political discussion. Have you offered anything else to this site? |
Easy to say.. but not the same as trashing the dems.. you've been tagged as a DU troll.. I doubt we are going to see you when the time comes to rag on the dems I have to hand it to you guys though.. You guys ran one of the best propaganda campaigns in American history, in this forum and a thousand other gun and political forums.. You found our weak spot.. the delusion thinkers.. and you were able to convince them that Bush and the Republicans are the enemy.. and, as a result, they either didn't vote or they voted 3rd party. |
Actually, I got the quotes from a private message board that's not political in any way. Do you have anything to actually say about the quotes themselves, or are you just going to attack because you know they're hypocritical?
And neither is your stupidity. |
One slanted? How many Democrats do you know would post that they thought Ronald Reagan was the best President in US history? I guess that encouraging people to think for themselves must really threaten the Republican groupthink around here. "He doesn't agree with everything we say...so he MUST be a Democrat!" 
|
Of course you did. Regardless, if you google some of those purported 'quotes', you'll see the one supposedly from Lott (for example) is alternately attributed to Santorum, Lott, and McCain. Gosh, context-less and source-less quotes that some newbie yahoo posts might be incorrect or made up. Imagine that. Besides, copying and pasting something from some leftard bbs and tacking on a 'OMG WHAT DO YOU THINX!@!!!11' doesn't make this a 'political discussion', it makes it a troll-post, by you.
Now you've gone and hurt my feelings. 
|
Plenty. They were all lying, of course... |
I'm not a Republican. This is not a "Republican" website. This is a website about guns. Do you own guns? Do you shoot guns? Why are you here? |
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. You're about to see the same crap directed in a different direction. Bend over and relax. |
|
I think someone's skipped a UN Resolution or 20 here. Better yet, why don't you tell us what all this means, it's your .02 or your dime or whatever.... I thought it was de rigeur for politicians to be be both for and against any controversial issue!!!!....who knew???? |
Wrong. You're about to see this country's future and possibly the future of the world sold down the river to the international jihad. You're gonna have a fucking ringside seat. Enjoy the show. |
|
Because, you know, slobodon milosovic was a real threat to the United States. He was trying to build nuclear reactors, had gassed thousands of innocents and was aiding Al Queda. Oh fuck me, no he wasn't, he was fighting AGAINST al queida. My bad. When someone explains to me why Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans were real threats to the United States, this will have a point. Till that time, this was Bill Clinton bombing people (christians fighting muslims, btw) for no good fucking reason. |
Even with the cut and run from Beirut, the '86 MG ban, and the amnesty for illegals that he signed? |
Or the increase in the National Debt. 
|
Next thing you know he'll be quoting the Founding Father fogies. The urban dictionary is not very flattering to Tanner. 
|