jamesgamerguy3 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

i like the one form steven colber better

Buzzboy8771 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Is this supposed to be funny?

falrapax (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

*that is to say, the point you're trying to insinuate is that all of those deployments were mini-Iraq Wars in themselves, which they by no means were.

falrapax (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Yes, actually, I checked Wikipedia before posting that because I care about facts.You ignored my point to try to insinuate a point that is non-factual. I said most of those deployments were for peacekeeping purposes as people looked to the U.S. in a post-Cold War world for assistance and maintenance of global stability. Very different from invading a sovereign country for no good reason with no clear goals and almost no international support.

seneca67 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

why don't you see the enormus recordbreaking number of military deployments ordered by Clinton. Rhetoric, thats all your offerring

seneca67 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Falra, we have made a tradition of defending those who are under attack throughout the world, we defended Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle east, Africa. Humanitarian assistance form our country exceeds many other nations entire GDP. YET, we seem to have a huge surplus of idiots that feel we owe apologies.. well frankly, we do not. Although I regret ever helping the Afghan people defend themselves from the USSR, I also regret defending Saudi

falrapax (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

*actually, that was a bit disingenuous. Between WWI and WWII, and sporadic points in the 19th century, there are times of longer-lasting peace in American history

falrapax (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Clinton got us a surplus, and the U.S. enjoyed its most peaceful years in its history. Most deployments were peacekeeping. Kosovo was the only major military operation in his presidency, and that was short-lived as well. At that time, the U.S. was the recognized superpower and people went to the U.S. for help because it was respected and followed by the rest of the world. What problems, exactly? Remember what Bush campaigned on, in part? "Less foreign intervention." So much for that one.

falrapax (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

seneca, unapologetic patriotism can RUIN a nation with the wrong leaders. See Zimbabwe, North Korea, potentially Iran depending on the next president we get, Palestine (among others I am less familiar with).The democrats aren't allergic to patriotism, but they have a different kind of patriotism: one that doesn't think that America's symbols excuse America's actions. America is great because of its ideals, its pursuit of "liberty and justice for all". Bush failed miserably at that.

seneca67 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I can't say i am impressed with this administrations conservative credentials, however, I don't think anyones doubts their unapologetic patriotism, which is the minimum I expect form any nations leaders. The democrat party seems to have an allergy to patriotism. And Clinton? The man who loathed the military yet deployed them more than another president since Nixon? He had no foreign policy. Instead he let the UN write our foreign policy. Lotta problems from those years.