Yes, it's true.

Maybe I should stop, I don't want to become predictable.

The Clinton era was hardly a time of national crisis with record economic growth and record unemployment lows. Stockholm wouldn't apply.

And you would still be in the minority, I kinda liked the adulterous fool.

I never said it is cleaned up we are for the most part out of there.

there will always be some remnant of our existance there. Just like there is still remnants in Germany, Japan, Cuba, Korrea and the list could go on. We have not been at war with Germany since wwII.

Excuse me, but that's exactly what you said....

we spent 16 week in afgan. And cleaned it up.

So....you're saying that our approximately 23,000 troops in Afghanistan are merely a "remnant"? Sounds like a bunch of people to me. But I suppose one man's remnant is another man's show of agression.

Nevertheless, we have treaties with Japan, Germany, and other nations which allow our presence in their countries - a very different thing than what we are doing in Afghanistan. We are not forcing an occupation on the people of Germany, Japan, etc. We do not meddle in the affairs of their governments whatsoever.

And CUBA??? Where have you been living for the last 40 years or so? The only US presence in Cuba is the prison at Guantanamo Bay, which we have occupied for over one hundred years via a lease agreement. Castro's government, by the way, maintains that our presence there is illegal. We have NO contact with the Cubans.

Iraq was a major threat to the stability of the Middle East, the flow of oil to our country and was a safe haven for terrorist training camps. Sadam committed genocide against his own people, was unstable and a terrorist to his own country.

Well....shame on us, then, for propping up his government. In February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states that supported international terrorism. And in 1984 we restored formal relations with Iraq (and SH).

Depends what you call a crisis. if you think cause wall street is up then no ( no crisis). But if you want to talk about morals and our children growing up in filth. then could be a that the clinton era was the worst thing. since the Civil war when all men were not created equal.( and just so this is spelled out.) I'm saying that it is as bad as when women and blacks had no rights. which in my opinion was not right at all

So....you're saying that our approximately 23,000 troops in Afghanistan are merely a "remnant"? Sounds like a bunch of people to me.

Well you might need to get out more yourself. Here is the info I just pulled of the net.

Main article: Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006

Representing the international nature of the conflict, Dutch Cougar and British Chinook helicopters at Kandahar airfield, part of NATO’s ISAF force in southern Afghanistan, 2006.

From January 2006, a NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) force started to replace U.S troops in southern Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. The British 16th Air Assault Brigade (later reinforced by Royal Marines) formed the core of the force in Southern Afghanistan, along with troops and helicopters from Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. The initial force consisted of roughly 3,300 British, [10] 2,300 Canadian, [11] 1,400 from the Netherlands, [12] 280 from Denmark, [13] 300 from Australia, [14] and 150 from Estonia [15]. Air support was provided by US, British, Dutch, Norwegian and French combat aircraft and helicopters.

Depends what you call a crisis. if you think cause wall street is up then no ( no crisis). But if you want to talk about morals and our children growing up in filth. then could be a that the clinton era was the worst thing. since the Civil war when all men were not created equal.( and just so this is spelled out.) I'm saying that it is as bad as when women and blacks had no rights. which in my opinion was not right at all

Bill Clinton was not responsible for the morals of anyone's children except his own. But while you are wielding that brush, let us not forget all the Republican lapses in morality which occurred between 1865 and the present. By your logic, they ruined plenty of young people, too.

So if I am understanding... there is less filth now? Just checking, because your statement seems ABSURD. Really, bizarre - and obscure.

So Bush's war on civil liberties is as important to society as the abolishment of slavery? I'll agree that what Bush is doing is important, but not in the same way that you will. It NEEDS TO STOP.

*shaking fist* Damn that damn freedom of damn speech! People are responsible for so much damn smut when they can voice them(damn)selves without fear of litigation and imprisonment. Damn!

Luckily we are well on our way to getting that little obstacle taken care of. If you want, I'll cite references later. I have to go for now.

Take care peeps

Well you might need to get out more yourself. Here is the info I just pulled of the net.

I need to get out more?????????

U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

JoAnne O’Bryant and Michael Waterhouse

Information Research Specialists

Knowledge Services Group

Summary

As interest in troop level deployments continue, recently, President Bush announced in a February 15, 2007 speech, the administration’s plans for an increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan, including a planned gradual increase of 3,200 U.S. troops on the ground in the coming several months. The total troop deployment in this region is expected to reach 70,000 by 2008.

I will be waiting patiently for your retraction, 396. I'm sure it will be forthcoming, just like the one where you owned up to saying we had "cleaned up" Afghanistan.

I will be waiting patiently for your retraction, 396. I'm sure it will be forthcoming, just like the one where you owned up to saying we had "cleaned up" Afghanistan.

Well Carlene I would be happy to retract(if I am wrong) But maybe you need to retract something. remember the post about me blaming libreals for gas prices that I called you on. You never said anything about that. So since then I have pertty much had you on ignore( until you say somthing obsurd)

But if you need me to tell you so you feel justified .

I did say cleaned up

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/15/politics/main2480896.shtml

Carlene read this

I need to get out more?????????

U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

JoAnne O’Bryant and Michael Waterhouse

Information Research Specialists

Knowledge Services Group

Summary

As interest in troop level deployments continue, recently, President Bush announced in a February 15, 2007 speech, the administration’s plans for an increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan, including a planned gradual increase of 3,200 U.S. troops on the ground in the coming several months. The total troop deployment in this region is expected to reach 70,000 by 2008.

your post is misleading the 70000 is not U.S. it is what some other countrys have offerd that Bush has not accepted yet. And the 3200 is just for a few months(4 months to be exact)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/15/politics/main2480896.shtml

Carlene read this

This supports my original statement, that we have 27,000 troops in Afghanistan. Aren't you supposed to be proving up your own arguments, instead of mine?