Have you forgotten?

See, 27jd, I really have debated this kind of stuff to a pulp. All I was saying is that I'm sick of it, and don't want to get started. Overall, I have enjoyed debates with you. You don't seem overly-biased or insulting. You're civil, and a fun person to debate with, but I don't want to get started in another one (For some reason all the threads I post in wind up in a one-on-one argument between me and someone else...wonder why).

See, it's hard to argue facts when you're on the internet. While you may call that link factual, and proof that Bush didn't increase the military's power; it is still just another website among billions, and I, too could find sites saying that Clinton did decrease military strength. I'm not trying to question your credencials, but that's how I see it.

I guess the main reason that I don't want to get into it is that I just got my braces off, and have been having alot of homework, along with a part time job and just don't have time to put any effort into a real argument. Because, with you, I really would have to put in an effort because you always seem to know what you're talking about.

As far as my proof goes...here's some: How Our Military WAS Weakened by Clinton According to This Article.

[Edited on 7-9-2004 by Herman]

Clinton signed an executive order to kill Bin Laden in spring 0f 1996 and also signed the order on three different occassions to take Bin Laden out but the orders could not be carried out.

I agree with you that most of these sites have obvious bias, and there's alot of "proof" on both sides, so instead of believing one or the other on this issue, I will just say I don't believe either party is stronger militarily.



This is understandable, there are alot more important things in life than anonymous internet discussions.

THE UN
This club is partly owned by the USA, which pays the most in $$$ and millitary capasity to this group. WE OWN IT...IT workd for us, not the other way around. We the people didnt elect ANYONE at the UN to represent the USA or protect its interests.

Have we forgotten the constant violations of the no fly zone, in defiance of the cease-fire agreement that saddam agreed to? You know, the violations where AA missiles were shot at coalition aircraft all the time...
Well if you are under a ceasefire agreement, and you violate it, youve basically renewed the hostillities. and the UN approved the no fly zones, so by default, they sanctioned continuation of the conflict as saddam violated the terms.

Oh yeah, the UN was working WITH saddam behind the scenes to rippoff the Iraqi people thru the OIL for FOOD ripoff scam....why would they do ANYTHING that actually had consequences for violations of UN decrees?
If they couldnt enforce crap on saddam, they sure as hell arent going to be able to pin the USA into compliance with anything.