BJ, by your logic, there is no one we should be... -- Albany MSNBC Refugees Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thursday, April 13, 06:33:14pm
Author: Ace
Subject: BJ, by your logic, there is no one we should be...
In reply to: BJ 's message, "Re: So it doesn't matter how many of our troops get killed as long as your safe in your sleepers..." on Wednesday, April 12, 09:30:41pm

targeting, because the 19 who hijacked the planes died carrying out their objective. As you are so quick to point out, we have lost many good men and women in Iraq. Rest assured, this is a fact not lost on me. What you refuse to realize is the fact our actions have drawn the lunatics who wish us harm into a "killing-zone" where we have been far more successful in our mission than they have been in theirs. That, BJ, is the objective of war, draw your enemies in and kill or maim them to the point they cannot inflict harm to your forces.

Something else to remember, BJ, is how many of our men and women died in Southeast Asia. Far too many of them died due to the flawed policies of LBJ and Nixon. That was a war that was winnable on the ground but not in the media and the media drove public opinion which both the afore mentioned weak-kneed presidents caved to.

There is no perfect president, all have flaws with some greater than others. President Clinton�s foreign policy was, by all measures, a joke. Tip toeing through the minefield that lead to 9/11 without addressing the situation in a timely manor has caused the current situation to be more of a problem but it was brilliant politically. Leave it for the next gut to deal with and wash your hands of it. Domestically, he did fairly well. On the other hand, President Bush has not had the acceptance that President Clinton enjoyed from foreign leaders (primarily due to the fact he would not bow to pressure from some of our allies). He has made great progress in reshaping the Middle East into a region that will one day have less animosity towards the United States. In my opinion, many of his domestic policies are flawed.

So, BJ, what would your response have been were you the President on 9/11?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Who would I have attecked, Afganistan, then Pakistan, where ever bin Laden... -- BJ, Saturday, April 15, 05:11:57pm
- For one who makes a great deal of noise... -- Ace, Monday, April 17, 07:44:17pm
  - Re: For one who makes a great deal of noise... -- b, Tuesday, April 18, 09:24:17am
    - If you are going to make comparisons, lets look at Viet Nam. -- Ace, Friday, April 21, 11:56:47am
      - Re: "lets look at Viet Nam." yes, read your history son, it was Ike's war... -- BJ, Saturday, April 22, 04:46:45pm
        Our involvement in Viet Nam under Eisenhower... -- Ace, Saturday, April 22, 06:27:18pm
        Re: Ike, like bush, starts a war then drops it into the next guys lap... -- BJ, Sunday, April 23, 10:35:16pm
        SPIN, SPIN, SPIN (NT) -- Ace, Friday, April 28, 11:01:13pm
      - Re: If you are going to make comparisons, lets look at Viet Nam. -- b, Saturday, April 22, 07:44:43pm
        The question was not relevant to the argument. -- Ace, Friday, April 28, 11:07:39pm
        Re: Sure it is ace, you just can't defend your position like usual you bore -- BJ, Monday, May 01, 11:02:10am
        Re: The question was not relevant to the argument. -- b, Monday, May 01, 01:48:17pm
        You and bj just don't want to face the facts. (NT) -- Ace, Monday, May 15, 06:39:43pm
        Re: You and bj just don't want to face the facts. -- b, Tuesday, May 16, 02:15:53pm
        I guess you can read but comprehension is another matter. -- Ace, Tuesday, May 16, 05:55:58pm
        Re: I guess you can read but comprehension is another matter. -- b, Thursday, May 18, 04:22:32pm
        Defending the country is no simple matter. -- Ace, Friday, May 19, 10:59:54am
        3000+ due to Clinton's unwillingness to address the terrorism problem earlier. (NT) -- Ace, Friday, May 19, 11:35:06pm
        Re: 3000+ due to Clinton's unwillingness to address the terrorism problem earlier. -- b, Monday, May 22, 10:33:43am
        Re: 3000+ due to Bush ignoring intelligence information.. -- b, Monday, May 22, 12:33:31pm
        Re: 3000+ due to THE LAST 5 ADMINISTRATIONS ignoring intelligence information.. -- Brassman, Monday, May 22, 09:43:47pm