|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#91 | |||||||||
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:32 AM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's some straight talk from Bill Clinton: The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,984
Local Time: 09:32 PM
|
Quote:
I live in Arizona an have liked everything here except that its a damn red state. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 05:32 PM
|
And having said that, Bill Clinton still refused to start a ground invasion to remove Saddam.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 | |||
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,129
Local Time: 07:32 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The public's view of the war will more than likely be one of "the misguided and misexecuted war". But it all depends on what happens in the next year or so... |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:32 AM
|
He didn't refuse a ground invasion, but felt there was still time for alternatives to work. Those alternatives failed. In 2003, Bill Clinton publically supported the ground invasion to remove Saddam.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,439
Local Time: 08:32 PM
|
Sting/Strongbow...against my better judgement I am going to briefly attempt to use some logic with you; Even - EVEN - if Saddam was as big of a direct threat to the US as you continually say he was - removing him from power was STILL not that reason given to the public when Bush first ordered the invasion. The reason given to the public was merely to get rid of any WMDs that Saddam may or may not have had. Only after none were found did the mission become to take him out of power altogether. And the reasoning given to the public for that was the T-O-T-A-L lie that Saddam had been involved in 9/11. And why was that lie told? Because Saddam hadn't yet done anything to us. Even if Saddam was as big of a threat to the US as you continually say he was, he hadn't yet done anything to us to warrant an invasion. The 9/11 lie was told so that the public debate would be whether or not Saddam was involved in 9/11, and NOT what the ethical dilemmas and implications of the Bushist 'preemptive war' doctrine/philosophy were.
Going to war with a country that you think might hurt you but that hasn't yet done anything to you is unacceptable, and lying to the country about it to divert their attention from that ethical debate while simultaneously misleading them into supporting said war is unacceptable. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#97 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,967
Local Time: 08:32 PM
|
Quote:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#98 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,439
Local Time: 08:32 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 05:32 PM
|
If you want to use Clinton's support for Bush's invasion as a bludgeon, then use a contemporary quote ~ 2003. In the 1990s, Clinton decided that despite all the awful things Saddam had on his ledger, a ground invasion still wouldn't be productive. Even though regime change was (I think) the official policy of the US government re: Saddam, that is not an automatic endorsement of several hundred thousand troops going to war.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#100 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:32 AM
|
Quote:
Just ask yourself this, do people discuss US intervention in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the 1991 Gulf War mainly from the perspective of whether it was legal, what was the "true" motive, how many allies did we have, was it related to other conflicts; or is the most important thing they discuss is the impact it had on US and global security at the time and why or why not it was necessary for the US to intervene to positively impact US and global security. In the case of Iraq, the main security issue was whether or not to remove Saddam from power in 2003. The majority of the military to this day still supports that removal of Saddam from power. The publics approval will begin to move closer to the military's in the coming years. The only reason the public approval dropped for the war was its length with the associated costs. Provided the United States does not prematurely withdraw from Iraq it will succeed in its mission there which will go a long way to impacting public approval on the issue in the future. Its not the legal issues or the number of allies that people will be talking about and making their judgement on, its what the military intervention meant for US and global security. Thats how its been done with previous US wars, and the current Iraq war will be no different. The only thing that is going to seem misquided in the future is the idea of leaving Saddam in power. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,129
Local Time: 07:32 PM
|
Quote:
I think you should compare preemptive wars to preemptive wars... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#102 | |||||
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:32 AM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:32 AM
|
Quote:
You can call that preemptive, preventive or what every you like, but it was done to insure US and global security after the crises of 1990-1991. The one thing that all these major wars have in common that the United States as been in, is US and global security, and the positive or negative effect that intervention has had on that is how each one will be judged. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#104 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:32 AM
|
Quote:
The above statement by Bill Clinton was made in December of 1998 after the failure of years of inspections, sanctions, and other means to solve the problem. The ultimate conclusion at that time was that Saddam needed to be removed. The ONLY way that could happen proved to be a full scale military invasion. Other options were tried and failed. Given that the only way Saddam could be removed was through a full scale military invasion, the statement is an early endorsement of that option. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 05:32 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|