Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Bill Clinton's oopsie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chloe
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    As if Reno didn't have enough blood on her hands. (Sorry if you already linked to this above btw, couldn't open them due to a slow connection).

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by Chloe View Post
    Right. Years ago he originally said "I turned down when the Sudan gave him to me...", which seems far worse. They handed him Bin Laden on a plate, and he said no.
    Yes, Sudan offered him up on a platter and Janet Reno advised Clinton there were no real grounds to arrest him.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDJarvis
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    He was right. If he killed 300 innocents in order to get one man, he would be no different than OBL.
    He would have been very different, he would have acted to save thousands of american lives. Before you run off at the mouth aout hindsight being 20/20 don't forget all the bodies in the wake of OBL prior to 9/11. Not killing the man was stupid as per what Clinton knew at that point (and had done previously).

    [QUOTE]
    Of course I believe in an America that is principled and moral. I know that is not reality, but without principles, moral ones we are no different from the madmen. I don't want a nation that looks and is a madman.

    None of your heros, John Wayne, etc, would have killed 300 to get one man. The old conservatives were a lot more moral in beliefs. I think. What happened?
    Cut the infantile nonsense and develop some new scripted replies; John Wayne was never more then an actor to me and I'm not a conservative.We are a nation that set cities on fire, detonated atomic bombs, and killed hundreds.of thousands we never declared war on in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (prior to 9/11). The morality you pretend to is absent and has been absent for a good long time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chloe
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Btw Sluggo, this was a link to Berger / Clinton refusing the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden in the 90's, if you want a discussion on the historical effect on the Clinton legacy, that is fine:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec...nion/oe-ijaz05

    Leave a comment:


  • Chloe
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Yeah, sorry if it gets this discussion off course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by Chloe View Post
    Right. Years ago he originally said "I turned down when the Sudan gave him to me...", which seems far worse. They handed him Bin Laden on a plate, and he said no.
    Wait, are we talking about the same opportunity from the OP or a different opportunity to take out Bin Laden? If it is the latter then we now have even more to discuss on the Clinton legacy if there was more than one opportunity to take him our post his inclusion on the Most Wanted List.

    Leave a comment:


  • soot
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    He was right. If he killed 300 innocents in order to get one man, he would be no different than OBL.
    According to Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Usama Bin Laden unit, Clinton had numerous opportunities (at least ten over a 12-month period between May of 1998 and May of 1999) to kill bin Laden where the only "collateral" damage would have been to other other members of al Quida and/or to Taliban officials (district governors, functionaries, and the like)

    In one instance where bin Laden was in Kandahar for a meeting with Mullah Omar Scheuer says, "We had an asset that put him in that room, escorted him there and reported to us where he was. The attack would have occurred in the middle of the night and it would have killed no one but Taliban people and Usama bin Laden and his crew."

    The ultimate decision not to kill him at that time was reached because the possibility existed that some shrapnel from the attack may have hit a nearby Mosque and done damage (albeit minor, superficial damage) to the building's facade.

    Now I'd certainly agree that killing 300 women and children in an effort to get any one man, even bin Laden, is completely unacceptable.

    But passing up the opportunity in order to avoid minor damage to a Mosque?

    Consider that in 1993 Bill Clinton personally approved (according to Janet Reno) the FBI's assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX than ultimately burnt that religious building to the ground and killed 78 Americans, many of them innocent women and children.
    Last edited by soot; 08-01-2014, 09:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chloe
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Right. Years ago he originally said "I turned down when the Sudan gave him to me...", which seems far worse. They handed him Bin Laden on a plate, and he said no.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    None of this is really new news. I suspect there will be a lot of things that the Clintons get out in the air long before 2016 to let the dust settle around them.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4540958/ns.../#.U9u-bfldWSo

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ll-bin-laden-1

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymil...-bill-clinton/

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    It is one of those damned if you do, damned if you do not questions.

    As I said above, I am leaning to yes... it is worth the risk and commitment to the loss of life to take out 300 of them including Bin Laden to save the almost 3000 people taken out by 9-11. The situation is not all that removed from the decision to use atomics on Japan to prevent perhaps even larger loss of life with a land invasion. Well, sort of.

    Where I am stuck is it assumes too much to decide contrary to what Clinton decided. For all we know taking out 300 Afghanistan people would have enraged a nation into perhaps doing something much more grand than what 9-11 produced. That is the opposition ending point, but of course it starts with the realization our mass killing makes us no better than Bin Laden.

    It is a tough position to consider making it difficult to completely blame Clinton for Bin Laden being alive long enough to pull off 9-11. The political spin machine will do it anyway but history will encourage us to think about these things in the context of all these "what ifs." Interesting discussion but for the purposes of this thread we may be able to conclude Clinton's comments were an oops moment, but his decision might have been the more moral choice.
    Eh you might be able to defray that with a message "don't hang out around known terrorists because when we lob missiles at them you'll be hurt too. Simply ostracize them, or still better turn them in to us. They are now fair game. If you hang out with them that makes you collateral damage." << Obviously you'd have to church that up a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    In that case: It depends.

    Do you have intelligence that Bin Laden will continue committing terrorist actions causing mass casualties? If so: Minimize casualties among civilians as much as possible but kill the ever loving shit out of him. The leader of a nation does not have the luxury of safeguarding their morality in a situation like this. The price for power is quite steep, and comes with terrible responsibilities and duties that are not in any way shape or form moral. You tie yourself to the interests of one group, over and above all others including your own conscience for the most part.
    It is one of those damned if you do, damned if you do not questions.

    As I said above, I am leaning to yes... it is worth the risk and commitment to the loss of life to take out 300 of them including Bin Laden to save the almost 3000 people taken out by 9-11. The situation is not all that removed from the decision to use atomics on Japan to prevent perhaps even larger loss of life with a land invasion. Well, sort of.

    Where I am stuck is it assumes too much to decide contrary to what Clinton decided. For all we know taking out 300 Afghanistan people would have enraged a nation into perhaps doing something much more grand than what 9-11 produced. That is the opposition ending point, but of course it starts with the realization our mass killing makes us no better than Bin Laden.

    It is a tough position to consider making it difficult to completely blame Clinton for Bin Laden being alive long enough to pull off 9-11. The political spin machine will do it anyway but history will encourage us to think about these things in the context of all these "what ifs." Interesting discussion but for the purposes of this thread we may be able to conclude Clinton's comments were an oops moment, but his decision might have been the more moral choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    I do not know, all we have to go on for now is Clinton's comments. Assuming no one runs out to the press and tells us something contrary to what Clinton said his options were to take out Bin Laden.

    My question though might lead to interesting discussion. Assume Clinton was being factual for a moment, is it acceptable to take out 300 civilians to also take out Bin Laden assuming it also prevents 9-11 and all those deaths?

    I also agree with you, I suspect the political spin machine will have so much fun with this it will eventually be another lag on the Clinton legacy.
    In that case: It depends.

    Do you have intelligence that Bin Laden will continue committing terrorist actions causing mass casualties? If so: Minimize casualties among civilians as much as possible but kill the ever loving shit out of him. The leader of a nation does not have the luxury of safeguarding their morality in a situation like this. The price for power is quite steep, and comes with terrible responsibilities and duties that are not in any way shape or form moral. You tie yourself to the interests of one group, over and above all others including your own conscience for the most part.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    I don't suppose he could've IDK waited til he went to take a shit and catch him with a targetted strike or something? Even in the 90's we had laser guided munitions and the f16. I kinda doubt he would've had to blow up the entire town to get at him.
    I also don't suppose he could've kept the little fucker under active surveillance (by say satellite) waited til he got on the road, and THEN got him with laser guided munitions?

    I think this will bite him in the ass (and hilary by extension)
    I do not know, all we have to go on for now is Clinton's comments. Assuming no one runs out to the press and tells us something contrary to what Clinton said his options were to take out Bin Laden.

    My question though might lead to interesting discussion. Assume Clinton was being factual for a moment, is it acceptable to take out 300 civilians to also take out Bin Laden assuming it also prevents 9-11 and all those deaths?

    I also agree with you, I suspect the political spin machine will have so much fun with this it will eventually be another lag on the Clinton legacy.

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    This is one of those thing the Clinton legacy will have to contend with, including the timing of the comments. And it leaves me very uneasy.

    I am curious why the only way to get him was to hit a town in total, but it begs a serious question I suspect politics will not care for. Correct me if I am wrong but Bin Laden was already wanted for his participation in the 1998 attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I also cannot help but add in the Somalia connection as a benchmark for Clinton Administration handling of the military. You could argue well that in Somalia Clinton pulled our resources out before completing any of the security or even humanitarian objectives. You could also argue well we ignored the threat of Al Qaeda connections in the region and the suspicion that our involvement there. Perhaps including terrorism connections to Aidid's forces. It branded the administration as weak and cowardly potentially opening the doors to increased attacks on our interests and even our homeland. All of which ended up happening.

    If follows the real question is was killing 300 Afghanistan women and children the right thing to do given the assumed collateral damage *and* assuming it would have prevented 9-11 from occurring? It is a tough question. But in the spirit of debate I'll answer first. I think it may have been the right thing to do even though we know that there would be Afghanistan (and international community) outcry over the attack to take him out. It is a tough call to put on a level 300 of them or a couple thousand of us.

    Thoughts from the community?



    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...den/?hpt=hp_t2
    I don't suppose he could've IDK waited til he went to take a shit and catch him with a targetted strike or something? Even in the 90's we had laser guided munitions and the f16. I kinda doubt he would've had to blow up the entire town to get at him.
    I also don't suppose he could've kept the little fucker under active surveillance (by say satellite) waited til he got on the road, and THEN got him with laser guided munitions?

    I think this will bite him in the ass (and hilary by extension)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Bill Clinton's oopsie

    This is one of those thing the Clinton legacy will have to contend with, including the timing of the comments. And it leaves me very uneasy.

    I am curious why the only way to get him was to hit a town in total, but it begs a serious question I suspect politics will not care for. Correct me if I am wrong but Bin Laden was already wanted for his participation in the 1998 attacks on the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I also cannot help but add in the Somalia connection as a benchmark for Clinton Administration handling of the military. You could argue well that in Somalia Clinton pulled our resources out before completing any of the security or even humanitarian objectives. You could also argue well we ignored the threat of Al Qaeda connections in the region and the suspicion that our involvement there. Perhaps including terrorism connections to Aidid's forces. It branded the administration as weak and cowardly potentially opening the doors to increased attacks on our interests and even our homeland. All of which ended up happening.

    If follows the real question is was killing 300 Afghanistan women and children the right thing to do given the assumed collateral damage *and* assuming it would have prevented 9-11 from occurring? It is a tough question. But in the spirit of debate I'll answer first. I think it may have been the right thing to do even though we know that there would be Afghanistan (and international community) outcry over the attack to take him out. It is a tough call to put on a level 300 of them or a couple thousand of us.

    Thoughts from the community?

    "He [Osama bin Laden] is a very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him – and I nearly got him once," Clinton said. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...den/?hpt=hp_t2

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X