Thanks for clearing that up prof. :thumbsup:
Fuckin politicians...shit if I were president...I dunno, but a lot of shit would be different!
I doubt it because you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
A lot of times you are forced to react just because the failure to react sets a precedent that the US will not react.
The fact that the US reacts is a fear-based deterrent in itself.
That's why I take the time to understand W., Clinton, H. Bush, Reagan, etc...
If people think some of the statements W. makes are stupid, you should re-read them when they come out of Clinton's mouth as well.
Now Clinton is far better of a public speaker, but Clinton "had to react" -- and did -- to various events -- including Iraq.
Sometimes the reaction was little different, especially in the warnings, words, military movements, etc...
I don't think people remember that Clinton deployed our troops more in peacetime than any other President, ever.
The average staging of a military family was only 6 months during his 8-year Presidency.
Some people like to break it down by only 3-4 years before a lot of mid-term on-ward deployments -- but it was the lowest average stay over his entire 8 year term.
People also forget that the "War on Terror" phrase started in 1998 with Clinton.
And the intelligence, comments on Iraq and, ultimately, the war plan executed to oust Hussein were the exact same provided to Clinton as well.
He just didn't do anything more than bomb (although it was quite embarrassing when he did and 0 targets were hit, with plenty of innocent civilians killed and other collateral damage in 1998).
And that's before we look at 1995-1996, which was very, very embarrassing when it came to the Iraq -- especially when we agreed Iraq was complying, and then the defections showed they were very much not.
As I said, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We didn't in 1995-1996, and we were damned as we didn't.
We did in 1998, but stopped, and we were damned for both doing and not doing -- especially doing without UN approval.
And now in 2003+, we're really damned.
I said, "This is just like Vietnam", long before anyone said, "This is just like Vietnam". Why don't I get the big bucks to point out this stupidity before billions is wasted on it?
Unlike Vietnam, there is a resource in the region that 42 other allies need secured as well.
That's the difference -- along with the body count being at a much lower (although still significant) rate.
But I do find it humorous that they call it the "10th Crusade" sometimes though.
Why? Because I would have then assigned a "Crusade" number to the colonizations efforts by the UK, France, etc... as well -- but they aren't.
Which is why I find it humorous that people don't even know their own history.
There were far worse atrocities committed in the last 100 years by these other nations than the US is allegedly doing now.
Which is why I always say I'll take "US imperalism" and "US torture" to any other western European nation's history any day.
And I've regularly pointed out that the only reason they aren't still on-going is because these other nations can't afford the military to do so.
France is a good study of this through as late as the '50s and '60s, and finally decided it didn't have the funds to continue funding its military to do such.
Especially when it can just privately back the US and criticize us in public, which is always my personal favorite (de Gaulle - Nixon anyone?).
Frankly, I think they're still pissed about Suez, where we actually stuck our neck out for the Arabs -- things people forget.
Although Egypt and the leaders of a few other nations, thank God, have not.
Frankly, I'm at the point when I hear someone say "billions wasted" about Iraq, I just want to point out the obvious.
If you don't want "billions wasted" on the Middle East, consider why we are there, for ourselves and our 42 allies.
Until someone can give me 1 solid, technical excuse not to support the President's energy plan laid out in 2005 (which was not so coincidentally after his last and final election),
I say either get on board and what we should be doing, or just continue to sign yourself for continued petroleum-based national security focus.
There's a lot I don't like about W., all of which is why I
never voted for him (as well as not for Gore or Kerry either).
But what he did in 2005 actually set us up for a good future, and we really need to be working towards those goals (unlike Gore and Kerry, much less Clinton who didn't give a flying fuck about even Kyoto, despite popular viewpoint).
A lot of people hold California up as a supposed "environmentally friendly state" because of the laws they've passed.
In reality, they are a chronic fuck-up and a perfect example of how popular environmental policy causes the worse policies and even worse environmental results.
Even the hardest-core liberal/left-facing fellow engineers I work with agree with me on this one as well.
The dirties power plants, a grid that cannot support even basic usage, much less home energy generation, emissions chjanges that go unenforced -- and 0 solutions.
Gore did not offered 1 single solution in his whole tirade, and looks like a hypocrite based on his own lifestyle.
W. has offered some solid solutions no President even had the balls to offer before (not even Clinton after he was re-elected).
I don't like W. for much, but the 2005+ Energy plan is the best start I've seen in ... ever!
