Truer words have rarely, if ever, been spoken.....

[ShockerGorilla]

For a good example of Clinton foreign policy in action, check out the movie "Blackhawk Down."

[SB Shock]

Frankly the 8 years of Bush was better than the 8 years of Clinton. It was due to the weaknesses of the Clinton administration that lead to 9/11 and Iraq.

George Bush (sr) elected not to remove Saddam from power (quite wisely I might add) in Iraq and used a containment strategy.

In retrospect, from what we know the U.N. shouldn't have stopped at Nasiriya and Safwan. There were like 10 division in Iraq and Kuwait that would made pacifying Iraq easy.

I also disagree with you on "containment". The policy on Iraq was to disarm under U.N. supervision (which they refused). Iraq refused and forced basically the U.S. to occupy Iraq in the North to protect the Kurds. The U.S. was at war almost every day due to the requirements of establishing a no-fly zone in the north (to protect the kurds) and in the south (to protect the Shia). The U.S. also had to keep U.S. troops deployed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (which cause it's own problems).

Clinton essentially maintained the same policy. Finally George Bush (jr) invaded Iraq for reasons that, in retrospect, are questionable. Now how can that possibly be Clintons fault??

Because the administration did nothing to force Saddam to comply with U.N. mandates. They did nothing and after 9-11, the world changed.

[Ixiah]

In retrospect, from what we know the U.N. shouldn't have stopped at Nasiriya and Safwan. There were like 10 division in Iraq and Kuwait that would made pacifying Iraq easy.

Bush would have exceeded his auhority. Congress only voted for the removal of troops from Kuwait.

I also disagree with you on "containment". The policy on Iraq was to disarm under U.N. supervision (which they refused). Iraq refused and forced basically the U.S. to occupy Iraq in the North to protect the Kurds.

Developing "no fly zones" and "occupying" are two different things.

The U.S. was at war almost every day due to the requirements of establishing a no-fly zone in the north (to protect the kurds) and in the south (to protect the Shia).

The point you mention are all of an air variety. I cant recall a single plane of ours being shot down.

The U.S. also had to keep U.S. troops deployed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (which cause it's own problems).

Similar to North Korea perhaps? How many men have we lost in halting that two bit dictator?

Because the administration did nothing to force Saddam to comply with U.N. mandates.

I certainly hope we never become the "enforcement" arm of the U.N. like you seem to desire.

They did nothing and after 9-11, the world changed.

The 9/11 commission found no connection betwen Iraq and the attack on the WTC and neither did president Bush.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

[SubGod22]

9/11 connection was never what created Iraq. It was the terrorist aspect and weapons.

I don't want to be the enforcement arm of the UN either, but when the UN refuses to really do anything someone has to or the UN is even more of a joke than it already is. If that's possible.

[SB Shock]

In retrospect, from what we know the U.N. shouldn't have stopped at Nasiriya and Safwan. There were like 10 division in Iraq and Kuwait that would made pacifying Iraq easy.

Bush would have exceeded his auhority. Congress only voted for the removal of troops from Kuwait.

That actually not true. Congress gave authorization to the president to use of Military forces against Iraq. Refer to H.J. Res. 77. No strings attached except the normal over sight under the war powers act.

Now the U.N. resolution 660 called for the withdrawal of all Iraqi troops from Kuwait. U.N. resolution 678 provided legal authorization by the security council to use "all necessary means to uphold and implement" resolution 660. There would have been a question once Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait whether any further action be legal. Had Iraqi used chemical weapons - it wouldn't have mattered - Sadaam would have been removed.

But this doesn't matter, I was speaking in terms of what we know now and what has transpired. Things would have likely went much more differently and move much more quickly had the the U.N. coalition removed Saddam (there would have been plenty of troops and a world committment).

I also disagree with you on "containment". The policy on Iraq was to disarm under U.N. supervision (which they refused). Iraq refused and forced basically the U.S. to occupy Iraq in the North to protect the Kurds.

Developing "no fly zones" and "occupying" are two different things.

Well there was an limited occupation in northern Iraq under "Operation Just Comfort".

The U.S. was at war almost every day due to the requirements of establishing a no-fly zone in the north (to protect the kurds) and in the south (to protect the Shia).

The point you mention are all of an air variety. I cant recall a single plane of ours being shot down.

It was not because they were not trying.

1992 - Shot down a mig in southern fly zone
1992-1993: Iraqi Sam sites fired daily on U.S. aircraft. U.S. attacked SAM sites that fired on aircraft.

1998-2002 - Iraq started firing again. American and British attack targets on a weekly basis.

For instance in 2001, there were 370 Iraqi attacks.

The U.S. also had to keep U.S. troops deployed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (which cause it's own problems).

Similar to North Korea perhaps?

Except these deployments of Infidels on their soil was causing these countries internal political issues. That is why they fully supported the removal saddam in 2003.

How many men have we lost in halting that two bit dictator?

This two bit dictator used chemical weapons in Operation Al-Anfal (1986-1989) which killed between 100,000 to 182,000 kurdish women and children. In one chemical attack on Halabja some 5,000 were killed and 10,000 wounded.

He also used chemical weapons in 1982 on shiite city of Dujail. 148 people were killed.

In 1983 8,000 members of a kurdish clan were kidnapped and executed.

This doesn't speak to his use of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war or his brutal daily repression and torture of Iraqis. There were 100,000 killed from chemical weapon attacks.

Because the administration did nothing to force Saddam to comply with U.N. mandates.

I certainly hope we never become the "enforcement" arm of the U.N. like you seem to desire.

If you don't enforce your resolutions then they mean nothing. That why U.N. pressure on Iran has not accomplished anything - because Iran know the resolutions are touthless. That is why NATO had to intercede in the Balkans because there was no will in the U.N.

They did nothing and after 9-11, the world changed.

The 9/11 commission found no connection betwen Iraq and the attack on the WTC and neither did president Bush.

That not the point. After 9-11 we had to look at our enemies different. They had brought the fight to our homeland for the 2nd time (1993 being the first).

Here is what was said by Democratic senators before Bill Clinton authorized bombing n Iraq in 1998:

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Here is the VP

You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed.

These are democrats saying these things in 1998. Had Saddam decided to use or sell chemical/biological/nuclear technology to terrorist at some point, do you think the American people would have held President Bush accountable? Do you not think the Democrats would have been all over him for not protecting America and using it as a campaign issue?

[Ixiah]

That actually not true. Congress gave authorization to the president to use of Military forces against Iraq. Refer to H.J. Res. 77. No strings attached except the normal over sight under the war powers act.

Now the U.N. resolution 660 called for the withdrawal of all Iraqi troops from Kuwait. U.N. resolution 678 provided legal authorization by the security council to use "all necessary means to uphold and implement" resolution 660. There would have been a question once Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait whether any further action be legal. Had Iraqi used chemical weapons - it wouldn't have mattered - Sadaam would have been removed.

But this doesn't matter, I was speaking in terms of what we know now and what has transpired. Things would have likely went much more differently and move much more quickly had the the U.N. coalition removed Saddam (there would have been plenty of troops and a world committment).

Essentially the use of force granted by congress was to enforce U.N. resolutions. Seciton 678 refers back to 660 which essentially says (in a long winded way) to leave Kuwait. The USA would not have gotten such global support for the operation if the goal had been "regime change". So Bush (sr) had the power to conquer Iraq - the politcal consequences made the option a no starter.

I might add that the U.N. would never have supported a conquest of Iraq (Russia, France, or China always block U.S. efforts on everthing).

Well there was an limited occupation in northern Iraq under "Operation Just Comfort".

Think you mean "operation provide comfort" - I would hardly call this an invasion....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort

It was not because they were not trying.

1992 - Shot down a mig in southern fly zone
1992-1993: Iraqi Sam sites fired daily on U.S. aircraft. U.S. attacked SAM sites that fired on aircraft.

1998-2002 - Iraq started firing again. American and British attack targets on a weekly basis.

For instance in 2001, there were 370 Iraqi attacks.

Any country that you are in contact with that hates you will have this sort of thing. Remember the spy plane that was forced to land in china? The U2 spyplane getting shot down?

The U.S. also had to keep U.S. troops deployed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (which cause it's own problems). Except these deployments of Infidels on their soil was causing these countries internal political issues. That is why they fully supported the removal saddam in 2003.

Now what was Kuwait going to do? Tell us to leave and gladly become the next state of Iraq? Get real. Personally, I think that part of the world could use a few infidels to bring it into modern times (can you believe it took till the 1962 for Saudia Arabia to offically end slavery).

This two bit dictator used chemical weapons in Operation Al-Anfal (1986-1989) which killed between 100,000 to 182,000 kurdish women and children. In one chemical attack on Halabja some 5,000 were killed and 10,000 wounded.

He also used chemical weapons in 1982 on shiite city of Dujail. 148 people were killed.

In 1983 8,000 members of a kurdish clan were kidnapped and executed.

This doesn't speak to his use of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war or his brutal daily repression and torture of Iraqis. There were 100,000 killed from chemical weapon attacks.

Ironic the day that the UN reported mustard gas first being used by Iraq Rumsfeld was meeting him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

To quote a recent UN statement on Darfur:
UN officials estimate over 400,000 people have lost their lives and some 2 million more have been driven from their homes."

Are we to go there next? Heck, compared to Stalin (20 million), Mao (40 million), Pol Pot (1.6 million) he is a small time thug.

Because the administration did nothing to force Saddam to comply with U.N. mandates.

If you don't enforce your resolutions then they mean nothing. That why U.N. pressure on Iran has not accomplished anything - because Iran know the resolutions are touthless. That is why NATO had to intercede in the Balkans because there was no will in the U.N.

Bingo! The U.N. means nothing militarily. So unless congress declares war how do you expect Clinton to "force" Saddam to comply with UN mandates when even the issuing body wont lift a finger to enforce them??

They did nothing and after 9-11, the world changed.

And G W Bush maintained the same policy till 9/11 because it was the best one. What "something" do you desire and how is it solely Clinton's fault?!

[quote=SB Shock]

That not the point. After 9-11 we had to look at our enemies different. They had brought the fight to our homeland for the 2nd time (1993 being the first).

Here is what was said by Democratic senators before Bill Clinton authorized bombing n Iraq in 1998:

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Here is the VP

You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed.

These are democrats saying these things in 1998. Had Saddam decided to use or sell chemical/biological/nuclear technology to terrorist at some point, do you think the American people would have held President Bush accountable? Do you not think the Democrats would have been all over him for not protecting America and using it as a campaign issue?

Saddam was a traditional dictator and the goal of a dictator is to maintain power. Essentially the reason why Saddam would not do something like that is quite simple - he has something to lose. They also tend to be quite paranoid. I am a student of history and dictators are all quite predictable in that regard. They will pounce on weakness but they do recognize strength. The would be dictators that dont learn that lesson quickly never live long.

I have deep respect for the office of the president and try to have little negative to say about them. However when Bush said that he was no longer concerned about Bin Laden, a man that killed nearly 3000 of my fellow americans, I lost all respect for him.

I pray I'll not have to say in the future that the "better Bush years" you mention allowed Bin Laden to escape Torah Borah, ignored him, and it caused another tradgedy.

[rayc]

Armchair quarterbacking is easy and can be great fun, but as a student of history you should know that it is much to early to judge the Bush decisions on Iraq and Bin Laden. He may have been wrong, but on the other hand history may look back on him as a wise president in that respect. We just don't know yet, the story in Iraq and on terror is not history, it's current events, and has yet to play itself out.

All my humble opinion of course.

[SubGod22]

Armchair quarterbacking is easy and can be great fun, but as a student of history you should know that it is much to early to judge the Bush decisions on Iraq and Bin Laden. He may have been wrong, but on the other hand history may look back on him as a wise president in that respect. We just don't know yet, the story in Iraq and on terror is not history, it's current events, and has yet to play itself out.

All my humble opinion of course.

:yes:

[Ixiah]

Armchair quarterbacking is easy and can be great fun, but as a student of history you should know that it is much to early to judge the Bush decisions on Iraq and Bin Laden. He may have been wrong, but on the other hand history may look back on him as a wise president in that respect. We just don't know yet, the story in Iraq and on terror is not history, it's current events, and has yet to play itself out.

All my humble opinion of course.

What a huge hypocrite! Clinton's decisions in relation to 9/11 eight years ago are fair game but the Bush decisions of seven years ago aren't. Please at least try to show some objectivitiy.

Feel free to explain why it is no longer important to bring a mass murder to justice. I look forward to it.

[rjl]

What a huge hypocrite! Clinton's decisions in relation to 9/11 eight years ago are fair game but the Bush decisions of seven years ago aren't. Please at least try to show some objectivitiy.

Feel free to explain why it is no longer important to bring a mass murder to justice. I look forward to it.

Don't ask for too much, Ixiah, because you're responding to what has become a standard party line in regards to the Bush administration. I've seen it a lot over the last few months; it's the lame duck argument to go along with the lame duck president.

The first party line, some 8 years ago, was "Bush is bringing a higher moral standard to the presidency".

When it became more and more obvious that wasn't the case, it changed to "his determination to bring all the evil-doers to justice". Coinciding with this was a massive attempt to tie Iraq with 9/11 both before and during the Iraq war.

When that wore out, it became "the war in Iraq is about helping the people and not about weapons of mass destruction."

Etcetera.

And now that the evidence of failure both foreign and domestic is there for all to see, it's finally become "history will judge him to be a good president". It's the last grasp. You can't debate how he is now, see, because it's become so evident that any argument in his favor is untenable.

The "history will judge" argument, though.... The idea being it's the final grenade you can lob and not be properly debated against because, unlike almost every other pro-Bush argument you can try to make, it depends on the passage of time for any proof of it being wrong--as if the failures of the present will somehow become roses growing out of a massive pile of manure in a decade or more.

Often times this argument is followed with Abraham Lincoln's approval ratings during the last moments of his presidency. You know, because the division of a country by freeing slaves is the same thing as sending a nation to war under false pretenses, war crimes, and deregulation of industries to the point of economic collapse.

[BenWSU]

Feel free to explain why it is no longer important to bring a mass murder to justice. I look forward to it.

Truman for killing Japs in Hiroshima & Nagasaki ???

[kcshocker11]

Feel free to explain why it is no longer important to bring a mass murder to justice. I look forward to it.

Truman for killing Japs in Hiroshima & Nagasaki ???

Apples and oranges. Japan was the agressor. Truman may of saved a million allied lives. Iraq, unnessary war of aggression, oil was the target and only very few doubt that was one of the major reasons for the war. The world isnt a safer place after Shrub.

[rayc]

Ixiah:
What a huge hypocrite! Clinton's decisions in relation to 9/11 eight years ago are fair game but the Bush decisions of seven years ago aren't. Please at least try to show some objectivitiy.

Quit making things up, where in my statement is anything about Clinton? Objectivity is a concept you don’t even understand. Besides what decisions did Clinton make 8 years ago, when leaving office that are relevant to anything? (other than his last minute selling of pardons to criminals of course, Gov. Blagojevich’s role model?)

Feel free to explain why it is no longer important to bring a mass murder to justice. I look forward to it.

I’m not sure why you continue to believe Saddam is still alive. If you are referring to Bin Laden, then again you are just making things up. That doesn’t help your credibility, indeed I suspect credibility is another concept foreign to you.

The reason that I don’t respond to losers after I make my point is to let them have the last word – it somehow makes them feel better, besides all discussions with children tend to become circular and go nowhere. Adios!

[Ixiah]

Quit making things up, where in my statement is anything about Clinton? !

The discussion that you broke into between me and SBShock was a comparison of the Bush years and Clinton on Iraq and 9/11. I'll take back my comment on being a hypocrite since its obvious you dont know what the discussion was about.

Objectivity is a concept you don’t even understand.

Objectivity (definition)
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectivity

Now how on earth would you know my personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations? I guess you could use my posts as "evidence" to support this wild charge but you didnt even do that.

Besides what decisions did Clinton make 8 years ago, when leaving office that are relevant to anything? (other than his last minute selling of pardons to criminals of course, Gov. Blagojevich’s role model?)

See above for what the topic was about. You seem to be all over the place now.

I’m not sure why you continue to believe Saddam is still alive. If you are referring to Bin Laden, then again you are just making things up. That doesn’t help your credibility, indeed I suspect credibility is another concept foreign to you.

Here is my quote:

when Bush said that he was no longer concerned about Bin Laden, a man that killed nearly 3000 of my fellow americans, I lost all respect for him.

So now I am making things up. Well lets see:

I truly am not that concerned about him,

I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/14/nation/na-osama14

And you were talking about my objectivity! You didnt even BOTHER to look something up before accusing me of being a liar.

Next.

The reason that I don’t respond to losers after I make my point is to let them have the last word – it somehow makes them feel better, besides all discussions with children tend to become circular and go nowhere. Adios!

Name calling - now that is being an adult. What "point" is it you are trying to make? You seem to not know the topic and your posts are more filled with personal attacks then any tangible discussion.

Those who have no real ability to support their arguments rely on that for some reason. Makes them feel better I guess.

rjl - yeah I guess I was expecting too much from him. :( Although I must admit I have had some good debates from several here from the "right".

[SB Shock]

That actually not true. Congress gave authorization to the president to use of Military forces against Iraq. Refer to H.J. Res. 77. No strings attached except the normal over sight under the war powers act.

Now the U.N. resolution 660 called for the withdrawal of all Iraqi troops from Kuwait. U.N. resolution 678 provided legal authorization by the security council to use "all necessary means to uphold and implement" resolution 660. There would have been a question once Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait whether any further action be legal. Had Iraqi used chemical weapons - it wouldn't have mattered - Sadaam would have been removed.

But this doesn't matter, I was speaking in terms of what we know now and what has transpired. Things would have likely went much more differently and move much more quickly had the the U.N. coalition removed Saddam (there would have been plenty of troops and a world committment).

Essentially the use of force granted by congress was to enforce U.N. resolutions.

No, congress passed a resolution that gave the president an authorization to use force (he didn't need it anyway). There were no strings attached beyond the normal strings of the war power act.

Well there was an limited occupation in northern Iraq under "Operation Just Comfort".

Think you mean "operation provide comfort" - I would hardly call this an invasion....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort

No where did I call it an invasion. It was a partial occupation (called a humanitarium mission) of Iraq. And here is the point that you don't seem to understand - as long as there was the no-fly zone and the partial occupation of Iraq then Saddam was going to try to get back at the U.S.

That is why he tried to assassinate President Bush,

that why he was putting out rewards for anybody who shot down an american plane and establishing sam traps. An one of Bush nightmares is he would give WMD technology to somebody that meant the U.S. harm.

This two bit dictator used chemical weapons in Operation Al-Anfal (1986-1989) which killed between 100,000 to 182,000 kurdish women and children. In one chemical attack on Halabja some 5,000 were killed and 10,000 wounded.

He also used chemical weapons in 1982 on shiite city of Dujail. 148 people were killed.

In 1983 8,000 members of a kurdish clan were kidnapped and executed.

This doesn't speak to his use of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war or his brutal daily repression and torture of Iraqis. There were 100,000 killed from chemical weapon attacks.

To quote a recent UN statement on Darfur:
UN officials estimate over 400,000 people have lost their lives and some 2 million more have been driven from their homes."

Are we to go there next? Heck, compared to Stalin (20 million), Mao (40 million), Pol Pot (1.6 million) he is a small time thug.

You tell me, What is our moral responsibility?

However when Bush said that he was no longer concerned about Bin Laden, a man that killed nearly 3000 of my fellow americans, I lost all respect for him.

I find it interesting that you say that we shouldn't worry about a dictator that has killed millions with WMD, committed genocide and torture and who had the ability to do more. But you get mad that Bush didn't evade Pakistan to go after Bin Laden because he was part of a plot that killed several thousand americans in a attack that had no strategic significance beyond pride.