More on Gore...

[Tahoe]

[b-diddy]

ughhhhhhh... iraq in 1992 really isnt much to do with iraq 2003 or iraq 2007.

i think what this video really shows is that gore / clinton were way ahead of the ball game re: terror. kinda goes against common belief.

in conclusion: its possible to be pro gulf war 1 and not pro operation iraqi freedom without flip flopping.

[Glenn]

Looks like we are going for a skeleton hunt!

Tahoe will be our guide.

[Black Dynamite]

Looks like we are going for a skeleton hunt!

Tahoe will be our guide.

I like the fox news logo. This must mean that he actually scares some GOP special interests(Oil and whatever else pays off repubics). Question to any conservatives here. Do you get any of this money that pil companies pay to your FoxNews and your candidates? If so then I can understand your blind backing of them.

I hate one sided skeleton hunts though. Lets even this out.

6 contradictions from our current Bush "Peeps"


Is Bush an idiot? You Decide.

[Uncle Mxy]

b-diddy's right. Gore's right, too, but misses out at the "inconvenient truth" when it comes to the Middle East. Namely, many of the middle east messes are of our own making. Before the Soviets concluded that Reagan was willing to borrow and outspend and Gorbachev folded, we routinely would involve ourselves in a given world situation because the Soviets were (or might be) on the other side. Often, all of the options sucked and the only reason we picked one was because the Soviets seemed like they picked the other.

Let's start with Afghanistan. The roots of the Taliban Al Qaeda were the mujahadeen. Y'know, those guys Rambo freed from Soviet tyranny in Rambo III so they could beat the shit out of each other. The Taliban evolved as basically as the equivalent of the Ayatollah's regime in Iran (only without oil) getting sick and tired of being puppets to bigger countries. The Soviets went into Afghanistan because they were learning toward the west and folks like Carter (Dems played this game too) were encouraging it. A family member of mine was in Afghanistan as part of such efforts when the Soviets came in -- made for a most unmerry Christmas.

Iran was unusual at the time. Having just invaded Afghanistan, the Soviets weren't on great terms with Iran. Having backed the ousted Shah of Iran and his secret police and with the hostage situation, the U.S. and Iran hated each other. Thus, Iran became enemy of both superpowers. So, the game was for the Soviets and the U.S. to back the enemies of Iran, and whoever sucked up best got the spoils. Enter Iraq and good ol' Saddam "Key To Detroit" Hussein, who we backed despite Israeli opposition (fortunately, they were tied up with Lebanon). Despite our best efforts in funding Saddam, the Iranians had a decent stash from decades of our support, barrels of liquid money, and a lot of suicidal fighters. That kept things at a stalemate with Iraq and there was ultimately some sort of truce. Once Iraq didn't have all-out war with Iran, it wasn't at clear what to do with them. The U.S.S.R. was still huge but maybe on its way down, the Iraqis were depleted but still had a big stash of bad and knew how to use it, and there was a ton of oil involved. Do you prop up Iraq or maybe Iraq turns Soviet and gives the dying U.S.S.R. some breathing room? That'd suck for a legacy.

Any extended discussion of the dynamics of the day that doesn't involve the Soviets only tells part of the story.

[Zip Goshboots]

I tell ya what makes me sick: Our undying support for Israel. Should have given them Idaho instead. But NOooooo we gotta support them based on some bible bullshit that THEY invented. Fuck that.

[Tahoe]

Just posting some stuff thats more in line what I think of Gore. I didn't want to mess up the Gore won the NPP thread. I thought y'all might want a lil more well rounded opinion of Gore.

Clinton and Gore made 'Weapons of mass destruction" a household name fellas, not Bush. I don't even remember B41 using it.

[Uncle Mxy]

If I wanted to bash Gore, it'd be about dumbass things like the PMRC and the Clipper Chip. I remember when he was better known as Mr. Tipper Gore.

I always figured "weapons of mass destruction" was an easier bundle of words than "biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons". Google shows that the term was definitely in vogue at the time of the Gulf War, well before Clinton was on the national radar. I seem to remember Colin Powell using that particular term in Gulf War daze.

[Tahoe]

Tip was bitch slapping twisted sister. I was saving that for the Gore contest toc.

Google might say that, but Tahoe doesn't.

I'm not saying it was never used but iirc, some of the Dems were playing politics with the Gulf war saying Bush didn't finish the job. Friggin politics. I'm not and never will say the Republicans aren't guilty of ridiculous stuff too, but to believe that its only the Reps is following the Dems talking points blindly.

[Balkan]

b-diddy's right. Gore's right, too, but misses out at the "inconvenient truth" when it comes to the Middle East. Namely, many of the middle east messes are of our own making. Before the Soviets concluded that Reagan was willing to borrow and outspend and Gorbachev folded, we routinely would involve ourselves in a given world situation because the Soviets were (or might be) on the other side. Often, all of the options sucked and the only reason we picked one was because the Soviets seemed like they picked the other.

Let's start with Afghanistan. The roots of the Taliban Al Qaeda were the mujahadeen. Y'know, those guys Rambo freed from Soviet tyranny in Rambo III so they could beat the shit out of each other. The Taliban evolved as basically as the equivalent of the Ayatollah's regime in Iran (only without oil) getting sick and tired of being puppets to bigger countries. The Soviets went into Afghanistan because they were learning toward the west and folks like Carter (Dems played this game too) were encouraging it. A family member of mine was in Afghanistan as part of such efforts when the Soviets came in -- made for a most unmerry Christmas.

Iran was unusual at the time. Having just invaded Afghanistan, the Soviets weren't on great terms with Iran. Having backed the ousted Shah of Iran and his secret police and with the hostage situation, the U.S. and Iran hated each other. Thus, Iran became enemy of both superpowers. So, the game was for the Soviets and the U.S. to back the enemies of Iran, and whoever sucked up best got the spoils. Enter Iraq and good ol' Saddam "Key To Detroit" Hussein, who we backed despite Israeli opposition (fortunately, they were tied up with Lebanon). Despite our best efforts in funding Saddam, the Iranians had a decent stash from decades of our support, barrels of liquid money, and a lot of suicidal fighters. That kept things at a stalemate with Iraq and there was ultimately some sort of truce. Once Iraq didn't have all-out war with Iran, it wasn't at clear what to do with them. The U.S.S.R. was still huge but maybe on its way down, the Iraqis were depleted but still had a big stash of bad and knew how to use it, and there was a ton of oil involved. Do you prop up Iraq or maybe Iraq turns Soviet and gives the dying U.S.S.R. some breathing room? That'd suck for a legacy.

Any extended discussion of the dynamics of the day that doesn't involve the Soviets only tells part of the story.

1.You are not going far enough back. If you want a true starting point to blame for the messes, we look to the British and French Colonial Powers that divided the Middle East into what we see today after the fall of the Ottoman’s in 1918. How else due you explain the straight lines set up as border contours in the Middle East? As for picking options, you can thank the Truman Doctrine for that direction. After 1947, President Truman decided to pursue the policy of “Containment” to stop countries from entering the Soviet Bloc, since then and till the fall of the Soviet Union that has been the foreign policy of the United States towards the Soviet Union.

2. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are two separate entities, and are not to be combined. The Taliban were a loose alliance of Afghanis who partnered with other Afghanis Warlords to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Would you believe that most of the Taliban were not even Afghanis? They were in fact mostly Saudis and Pakistani and were funneled into the country through Pakistan. This is false, the Taliban rose to power on the platform of bringing Islamic rule to the country. The Soviets went into the country to expand their influence and gain territory in the Middle East. This was possible only by the fact that the 1970s were a good time for the Soviet Union. America had received a tarnished reputation in Vietnam, Eastern Europe was pacified so they supported the local Afghan Communist Party and helped them take over, sounds familiar doesn’t it?

3. Here is a history question for you, what was the underlying factor that caused the U.S to help install the ousted Shah of Iran? Answer: Look up Operation Ajax and marvel at the fact that it was the British who wanted the liberal Prime Minister Mossadegh removed because he threatened to nationalize the British controlled oil companies. Now then, when the Shah was about to be overthrown what was response of President Carter? Did he help his ally? No and as a result we get the Islamic Republic or Iran who, in one of the most daring acts of humiliation seizes the American Embassy and takes American hostages. Was that not an act of war? Did the Islamic Republic not take over sovereign American territory? Did they not violate international law? How long did the Hostage Crisis last? 444 days, far longer than needed. As for Iraq, the U.S only began supplying Saddam after both sides attacked neutral oil tankers. National Interests were being harmed by this war and President Regan sought to punish Iran not for targeting tankers but for the hostage crisis.

4.Quite true but your history on the entire region is slightly mistaken. I hope I cleared a few things up for you.

I tell ya what makes me sick: Our undying support for Israel. Should have given them Idaho instead. But NOooooo we gotta support them based on some bible bullshit that THEY invented. Fuck that.

Based on what exactly Zip? Please provide this evidence you have to support this statement. Otherwise I will tell my opinion, why we support Israel: National Interests. Are you aware that when the state of Israel was founded the U.S did not recognize them at once? Did you not know that Secretary of State George C. Marshall argued to President Truman that to recognize Israel would cause bad relations with the entire Middle East? Here is the rub, during the Cold War the Soviets supported the Arabs and therefore the U.S needed to respond by supporting Israel and therefore the U.S had gained a tenuous ally. National Interests are the reason behind U.S support for Israel, without them we would have to depend on traitors like Saudi Arabia for intelligence in the Middle East.