Norm Sauceman Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. Very nice gesture indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted March 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents are not troops nor are they affiliated with the military or even close to the military. But I guess when some whacko is holding people in a compound with grenades and automatic weapons we should just serve him with a subpoena and hope the process server doesn't get shot on his way to the door. And Ruby Ridge, well, last time I checked, militia's were illegal, thats about all I know on the subject. [/ QUOTE ] You had better do a whole lot of checking these two out because you reply is way off base in both cases! [/ QUOTE ] What, are ATF agents in the military now, I thought they were in the Treasury Department. That's what was said, Clinton turned our troops on our own people and he didn't, shouldn't the person who posted that have to know what he is talking about also. The people at Ruby Ridge were a militia am I correct, are they not illegal, I don't even remember that much about it thats why I didn't say all that much about it, and as for Waco, I was a Junior in high school at that time, what was it, 92 or 93. I can't even remember what I had for breakfast last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted March 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] i left out dope smoking, oh but wait, he didn't inhale!!!!!!!!! [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, but at least now we know Bush sparked the doobie, but he never admitted it, cause he didn't want little kids trying what he tried. Gimme a break, he knew it would hurt the campaign. Remember, he did young and foolish things when he was young and foolish just like every other red blooded American male. I couldn't care less what someone did 30 years ago and still can't figure out why both sides make such a big deal about someone smoking weed, Teddy Roosevelt snorted Coke for crying out loud. [/ QUOTE ] At least Bush has the cojones to admit he did it, and not try and hide the fact. Ya know what slug, i'm done with this, we all know you're in love with Clinton and can't stand Bush, you have proved that point over and over. Sometimes it looks like you bring stuff up to try and show just how good Clinton was, and how bad Bush is, (in your eyes). Give it a break man! [/ QUOTE ] Nawwww, it ain't done yet, thats the thing, Bush never admitted it, he admitted to doing young and foolish things, thats alot different than admitting you sparked a doobie, the only reason we know he really smoked pot is because of those tapes that that guy made back when he was Governor, what amazes me is Clinton admits smoking, he gets lambasted, Gore admits smoking, he gets lambasted, Bush admits to doing young and foolish things and then is discovered by tapes made years ago that he really did but he didn't want to set a "bad example" and nothing is said about it, if it were a democratic president, (ie. Clinton) the religious right would be out to crucify him and the house would be drawing up impeachment papers. Like I have said before, I hated Clinton when he was President, voted for Bush in 2000 and loved the guy, basically, I like Clinton now because he was good for the economy and he realized the value of allies and can't stand Bush now because well, for everything that he has done since Iraq, he misled us into war. Bush has even now admitted that WMD's were most likely never in Iraq and were never moved. Bush himself admitted it for cryin out loud and you guys still think they are there and he was justified for going there when he himself admitted the nonexistence of WMD's, do you guys realize what you are doing, you still think there are WMD's over there when the POTUS who ya'll revere as near Christ-like admits the intelligence was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJR Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] What, are ATF agents in the military now, I thought they were in the Treasury Department. That's what was said, Clinton turned our troops on our own people and he didn't, shouldn't the person who posted that have to know what he is talking about also. The people at Ruby Ridge were a militia am I correct, are they not illegal, I don't even remember that much about it thats why I didn't say all that much about it, and as for Waco, I was a Junior in high school at that time, what was it, 92 or 93. I can't even remember what I had for breakfast last week. [/ QUOTE ] You need to get it right! Along with the ATF, there were regular army in Waco with the armored vehicles, tanks etc. Randy Weaver was never a member of any militia! I don't know where you are getting that from! Also they had regular Army personal at Ruby Ridge! This was because Weaver tried to sell a sawed off shotgun! Where this militia garbage is coming from, I don't know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted March 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] You need to get it right! Along with the ATF, there were regular army in Waco with the armored vehicles, tanks etc. Randy Weaver was never a member of any militia! I don't know where you are getting that from! Also they had regular Army personal at Ruby Ridge! This was because Weaver tried to sell a sawed off shotgun! Where this militia garbage is coming from, I don't know! [/ QUOTE ] Just read up some on Ruby Ridge, I don't know where I was getting militia from either, must have been thinking of something else, the fact remains though, there were no military there just BATF, FBI and US Marshalls, you must remember the US Marshall that was killed. But hey, must be OK to kill a US Marshall there in Idaho, not condoning the killing of his wife cause, by all accounts there wasn't a reason for a sniper to shoot someone inside a house without provocation, but I seriously doubt that the US Marshalls knew they shot a kid in the back while he was running away cause from what I read there was a nice little gun battle going on, but, I guess if a kid is shooting at you you shouldn't shoot back. Did some reading on Waco also, the only mention of military there was military vehicles for safety purposes and Delta Force in helping for a tear gas plan. Clinton never used the military against American citizens. While I was reading I started remembering things and I remember an armored vehicle moving some cars and stuff outta the way, but, any federal law enforcement agency has armored vehicles, heck, big city police departments have armored vehicles. I'll post the links for the Waco info, someone on here said he had legal weapons and no explosives, one could only hope for that, but they are wrong, and David Koresh was a murderer and child molester who fathered children with 14 year old girls. The FBI and BATF gave him ample time and opportunity to surrender and when they felt they had enough they tear gassed them, they didn't set fire to the compound the Davidians did it themselves. Read the links I post. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/treasury.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/ But, lets also not forget about Presidents who have used military personnell. Lets see, back in World War II, natural born American citizens, who just happened to be Asian, were rounded up and placed in internment camps, in Idaho no less, all because of their last name, hmm, I wonder how many of our troops killed those nasty native Americans who were here first and were getting their land forcibly taken from them not to mention the lies propagated to make the indians look bad, the National Guard was used to enforce integration laws in the South, which, I know some people are still upset about that one. Anyone know of any more instances where the US military was used in this country ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] I sure do like and appreciate Clinton a lot more now that he's out of the public life. If he could only remove his wife from office, now that would be a gesture. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Could not agree more with that. Sluggo, Clinton did cut our military. It had been downsized considerably in the 90's under his terms. Bush walked in with a smaller military thanks to Clintons cuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted March 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] Sluggo, Clinton did cut our military. It had been downsized considerably in the 90's under his terms. Bush walked in with a smaller military thanks to Clintons cuts. [/ QUOTE ] A smaller, more efficient, better equipped military. Yes, he did downsize troop sizes, but he did it because he is the one who is responsible for the weapons and equipment advances the military is using today. He replaced the human with the technology to save human lives, but I guess that's a bad thing. And the Bush Admin is having base closure and realignment hearings right now, so Bush is on his way to downsizing also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. If I remember correctly it was called the new "leaner meaner" military, problem is that Clinton also cut alot of military programs and funding. No great surprise how that aided in the way of generating a "surplus" at the time. Technological advances are no doubt a good thing if they are proven field ready and they work properly, however if I am not mistaken here Clinton was the one who cut many of the programs to aid our military while also cutting out members of the military. I still think Clinton had no backbone and he is big part of the problem that gave way to the generalized assumption held by some other nations and groups that Americans are somehow weak. Bush has reinforced that our country will not be pushed over by thugs and that we will not sit by and be terrorized not to defend ourselves. Personally I think action needed taken long before the attacks on us ever happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted March 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] I think you got confused on the militia thing because Ruby Ridge is what started (or help start )the militia movement. [/ QUOTE ] I think I was thinking about the Montana militia thing when talking about Ruby Ridge at first, my mistake. This is the best link I could find on internment camps in Idaho that doesn't require sifting through a bunch of unrelated info. I first remembered hearing of the camps in Idaho a while back when I read a story about them. Apparently there were two camps, Kooskia, in the northern part of Idaho, and this Minidoka place in the south. http://www.boisepubliclibrary.org/Ref/guideinternmentcamps.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Sluggo, Clinton did cut our military. It had been downsized considerably in the 90's under his terms. Bush walked in with a smaller military thanks to Clintons cuts. [/ QUOTE ] A smaller, more efficient, better equipped military. Yes, he did downsize troop sizes, but he did it because he is the one who is responsible for the weapons and equipment advances the military is using today. He replaced the human with the technology to save human lives, but I guess that's a bad thing. And the Bush Admin is having base closure and realignment hearings right now, so Bush is on his way to downsizing also. [/ QUOTE ] Clinton may have replaced people with technology, but right now we nned the people. Do you realize how small the American forces are, and with personnel getting deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan repeatedly, many are leaving the service? Maybe, just maybe that if Clinton hadn't gotten rid of the forces that he did, the military wouldn't be stretched as thin as it is. Remember, there is strength in numbers, right now I feel we don'thave those "numbers" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugshooter Posted March 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Sluggo, Clinton did cut our military. It had been downsized considerably in the 90's under his terms. Bush walked in with a smaller military thanks to Clintons cuts. [/ QUOTE ] A smaller, more efficient, better equipped military. Yes, he did downsize troop sizes, but he did it because he is the one who is responsible for the weapons and equipment advances the military is using today. He replaced the human with the technology to save human lives, but I guess that's a bad thing. And the Bush Admin is having base closure and realignment hearings right now, so Bush is on his way to downsizing also. [/ QUOTE ] Clinton may have replaced people with technology, but right now we nned the people. Do you realize how small the American forces are, and with personnel getting deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan repeatedly, many are leaving the service? Maybe, just maybe that if Clinton hadn't gotten rid of the forces that he did, the military wouldn't be stretched as thin as it is. Remember, there is strength in numbers, right now I feel we don'thave those "numbers" [/ QUOTE ] Let's see, Clinton downsized troop sizes, true, people joined up in droves after 9/11 driving the numbers up, true, now that Bush has them on a continuing cycle of Iraq and Afghanistan they are leaving and fewer are joining, and that is Clinton's fault how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Re: Isn\'t this sweet. Amen gator, we need people, trained people. No him hawing or beating around the bush about it, Clinton did in fact cut our military. We are stretched way too thin, there is no doubt about it. As far as Bush cutting the size of our military, that is news to me, last I heard enlistment numbers of volunteers was still up and the recruiters were happily taking about anyone who walked through the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.