N Korea test Nuke

The only thing that proves it that we had a major economic boom and a recession. Again, what did Clinton do that was so special that helped the economy? He didn't really do anything.

Of course we can't count the insurgents. I don't see how that's a mistake though.


I'm not surprised, are you? Like I said, the UN never would have invaded Iraq. The US thought it was in the best interest of the country to go, so we did without the UN.


And we're not? We have the most information friendly military in the world, and they've been doing a standout job.

Economic backbone.


I really don't see it.

So everything positive that happens under a Republican administration is due to Republican brilliance, and anything good that happens under a Democrat administration is due to... Republican brilliance? How comfortable.

8 years in the Whitehouse is more than enough to have your own actions see their consequences happen before you leave office.

To get back to the origin of this point, anything good that will happen under Bush's watch I willing to give him credit for. But the deficit being cut in half is an obvious pre-election hoax when a major issue of the presidential campain in 2004 was about the growing deficit and debt (that has just reached another record btw), and when 3 news headlines out of 4 show how this administration if failing day after day.


Because, again, you don't fight such a specific enemy with "ordinary" military means. What needs to be done is extensive use of intelligence services to dislocate the financial sources of these organisation, it's not being done, and surgery precision commando missions to take out the leaders, not being done. Though Al Quaida leader's position on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border is no secret to western intelligence services.

I can't think of a military vs insurgents conflict that has seen the military side come out victorious, on the short or long run.

What needs to be avoided is the killing of innocents that without the carpet bombing would have been on your side. You know, however you disagree with your neigbour (as Shiites, Sunnis and Wahabis do) and however innocent you are, if you get bombed the same, then you have the same enemy.

Then if you do have to bomb anyway like the US army is, you have to balance it with much more stronger rebuilding and humanitarian plan. This had never been planned either.

No, the UN would have gone 3 to 4 months later as Saddam refused inspections to go on fully. There was no need to rush it like the US did. Even France had proposed to send some 15 000 troops on ground, if under the UN banner.
But then Hallyburton wouldn't have signed that many contracts...


Not in Iraq, not at this time, no. Again, the Iraqi oil was used to import food & drugs (medecine). The Iraqi economy wasn't running on the oil production. In the US though...
Administration offices, energy and water supplies and markets were the economic backbone of Iraq. It took months to have them running again.


Ponrauil

First, I have a hard time believing you actually mean what you type - I mean, really, it gives me the shivers.
And second, I wouldn't do half as good a job as Ponrauil does. If you want me to explain, I tell you this: please re-read what he said and this time try to understand some of it.

About the shivers, we are not the only ones, the problem is that the US is kinda profiling like pwnedshot does... while lots of people (me included) are, maybe, getting the wrong picture, altough this hasnt been proven wrong yet

I was about to type the same thing as CaptainCrash did but he said it better so I refer to Crash, referring to all Ponrauil said who kicked pwnedshot ass if this were a debat or anything....