No Medium .

You have notice the last 5 or 6 president of the U.S are either extreme right or extreme left not much of a medium . and most of the time this extreme either side make terrible choices Clinton = Waco +Oklahoma , Bush = Iraq + New Orleans , ..just to mention a few.

 

what did Clinton have to do with Waco and Oklahoma.....those were crazy fucks that did that shit on thier own.

 

Indeed. And I don't think clinton was that far left, either.

 

Ok I'll list some terrible choices Clinton made for arguments sake.

Sierra Leone
Democratic Republic of the Congo (deadlist war in 20th centrury since WW2)
Rwanda
Ivory Coast
Djibouti
Burundi
Uganda
Zimbabwe

Theres a list of countries where ethnic clashes took place during the presidncy of that man which claimed the lives anywhere between six and ten million people. many of them were children to wipe out the next race of either side of the conflict, and many more due to other war causes. Now the Death toll due to HIV is rampant due to the systematic gang rapping by militias. It's hard to get accurate records of this because so many records were destroyed amongst the genocide of the Congo Civil War's.

These we're conflicts which Clinton had CIA records put on his desk every morning, but refused to intervene because he thought it might be unpopular.

I'm very Liberal, and I hate Bush, but Bill Clintion might be the worst asshole to ever call himself president of the US.

 

Well I'm relieved that this is just political jibber-jabber. I thought you were going to say something important about the television show that stars Patricia Arquette.

 

Theres something important to be said about that?

 

ok, so you think the US should intervene and act like a little babysitter and punish those countries that have civil wars?? or fighting against each other?? it makes me sick that people think the US should get involved in every little domestic squabble. same goes with iraq too. even if saddam was a harsh dictator, and he was poisoning certain races of people, does that mean that the US should take him out?? who are we to judge??

why in the hell should the US, under clinton, gone into all those african countries?? what would that solve?? as you can see, all those are african countries you listed, there is always going to be turmoil. there is famine, there is death, and war in that area, and what can you do about it?? so, the US should have gone into those areas, declared war on the tyrants in charge, killed more lives, just to have peace in that area?? yep.

also, most of our efforts for foreign aid in those areas are all comfiscated by the militants who are in charge, and doesnt get to those people in need. and to get around that, we would have to wage conflict on those that are in charge.

 

Stopping genocide isn't exactly babysitting madcrappie.

Who are we to judge that genocide is wrong? We're humans and all humans have baisc civil rights.

Sending in troops in the DRC was desperatly needed and plead for by many many African leaders, what can you do about famine and war? Well the famine was largely a result of the war, so sending in troops would have certainly helped.

Moreover, the leaders we're often using those supplies for their own militia's because there were no Foreign troops to intervene.

And the last point is, we're obligated under internation law to stop Genocide. Under the UN Genocide convention of 1948 every member state is responsible for removing the scourge of genocide from the Earth.

As a permanent security council member, this is even more important.

Ten million lives could have been sparred with half then the number of troops we sent into Iraq had we intervened early.

That would have taken courage and forthought that Clinton didn't have.

Stopping genocide is all of our duty, and for you to excuse it having no alternative is appaling, sad, and lethargeic.

I'll post more on this later, I've gotta go get my wristband before I have to pay to get in a bar.

 

if it isnt babysitting (which the US does) it is policing the world. which of course has put us in the problem that we are in. (with terrorists)

 

a anti- guner, resposible for waco and the bombing of the tower plus 9/11 was plan under cliton belt plus the bombing of the world center how much liberal can you get. and arabs on a rampage.

 

I can't tell if you're serious or not. Are you serious?

 

If fullfilling international obligations to stopping genocide is policing the world in your definition, then fine. Places where women and children have to cower in fear of rape and murder by militias need to have 'police', whether foreign or international. Nobody deserves to live in constant fear of a civil war where there is no law, just chances to settle old scores.

And if stopping the deadliset war since WW2 with 60,000 troops would have created more terrorists, so be it. I would rather American soldiers have to dodge bullets in the Congo for a few years, then have the blood of 8 million Africans on our hands because we did nothing.

Of course we could have gotten the UN involved, it's their duty too under the Genocide Convention of 1948. All it would have required is strong will and conviction to the issue by the US which Clinton clearly did not have.

Moreover, saying intervention creates terrorists lacks an understanding of the social dynamic of both terrorism and the regions of the Congo Civil wars, and the Rwandan genocide. I won't go into it much here, as thats a whole nother thread, but the most prevalant face of Terrorism we're looking at now is Islamic extremism. There are many long standing issues to deal with here, which is why I say needs another thread, but many of the reasons have religion and social disorder intertwined, such as the US support of Israel, and the Iranian revolution. Like I said, this is a complicated issue, so if you want to discuss this part further, we should probably make another thread.

Almost all the players in the Congo Civil wars, and the Rwandan genocide were predominatly catholic countries, taking the zealotism dynamic out of it. That's not to say that troops in the DRC wouldn't have had to worry about militants, but that does somewhat simplify the issues which fuel our current struggle aginst Islamic militantism.

Sovereignty is not an issue when a genocide is taking place, a country surrenders it's sovereignty under international law when it commits genocide or aids and abets those who do, or is unable to stop such actions.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

We're not only legally obligated to stopping genocide under international law, we're morally obligated having the strongest military on earth to protecting the weakest, poorest people in the world from being engulfed in wars that would destroy their lives and claim million of their bretheren.

wiping the scourge of genocide off of the face of the earth should be the primary foreign policy objective of the United States for the next century.

 

we never stop any masacre in Africa is still going on today.

 

Clinton was very moderate ie-signing the welfare to work bill (a very right-winged and unjust bill), bombing Iraq when they inhabited the no-fly zone...ect

 

Your damn right about that. The news media covered Panda births about 15 to one for African conflicts.

What the president did with interns, which I could give a crap about, about 15,000 to one.

Massacres are still going on in Africa. The DRC has stabalized somewhat in terms of war, but the after effects of that devestating war are almost as bad as the war itself with horrible damage to the already fragile infrastructure and economy of the DRC and the spread of HIV which became rampant during the worst times of gang incursions on local villages.

Not to mention The Sudan, which's conflict is spilling over into Chad. There are only a few thousand AU troops gurading the Desert where refugees are living, and supplies we try to send to them are being stolen by Janjaweed to fuel their own daily incursions into refugee camps in Darfur.

This is a different situation from the Congo Civil Wars and the Rwandan wars, and should be handled a bit differently then they should have been. We need to get the EU involved in debt relief and support to the AU to help them protect, feed, and sustain the lives of the people chased into the Darfur desert.

The African Union can be the key to making this strife in Africa just a horrible chapter of history, not a continuing nightmare. We need to be cautious, as their predecesorers AEC we're largely a limp beauracratic forum where they supported strong man rule without much debate.

We need to give Chad enough debt relief and incentives to support Darfur refugees. There are lots of other things the AU needs to accomplish and needs our help to do so, but I'll leave with that now.

Murder rape and pillaging aren't ways of life in Africa, to say so would be racist and ignorant. These people need our help and attention.

 

wHY GO THAT FAR HE BOMB WACO TEXAS.

 

Then he got bomb back in Oklahoma.

 

And lets not forget Janet Reno in charge of the Gestapo.

 

In terms of domestic policies, Clinton didn't bother me that much. I'd definatly rather have liberals appointed to courts then conservatives, and he did get some good canidates.

He negotiated NAFTA which has helped out Mexico a great deal while improving US and Canadian economies.

He was moderate. I don't know if it's liberals or conservatives who aren't afraid of bad presss enough to intervene to stop genocide, but that's who I'm voting for.

Clinton was pretty moderate. Bush is right wing, but he's honestly more talk then action. Remember how the gay marrige ban in the constitution was big during the election, and we haven't heard of it since? Coincidence?

John Robert's isn't even that bad all things considered. Way better then Rehnquist's dead ass. I knew we were getting a conservative, but at least he's very qualified and not too crazy. Alito's a bit an asshole.

 

Bush is a puppet. I always thought that most presidents were puppets of lobbyists and indebters but now I know what the true meaning is. I don't think we will ever know his true stance on issues.

Clinton did a lot of things I admire but others I do not agree with such as welfare-to-work and not being proactive in reagrds to terrorism. He should have handled things better, not rage war but enforce international policies using his infamous diplomatic and charming ways.
I like John McCain quite a bit even though I am a regestered Democrat. He appears to be a true compasionate conservative who offeres solutions to the consequences of prospective bills. ie-If you're going to sign welfare to work you better damn well allow for affordable childcare and ensuring that dead beat dads are held financially acountable.