Bill Clinton get's Pissed - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-28-2006, 11:54 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Not if your goal is the prevention of terror attacks against Americans. Zero is a pretty good result is it not?

Have there been missteps, setbacks, some questions of constitutionality, and IMO a huge blunder in the execution and timing of the Iraqi invasion, sure. But what's the alternative and can it achieve the same result?
So you're saying it's a good thing we went into Iraq otherwise we'd have had a whole bunch more 9/11's by now?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 11:58 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


I wish he HAD stuck to taking the war to the terrorists instead of wandering off on this Iraq tangent. Let's see. . .Saudi Arabia has been a hotbed of terrorism with it's Wahabi extremism being coddled there? But we couldn't attack them could we? Of the axis of evil, one nation, Iran was actively supporting and propping up a terrorist organization (Hezbollah). Osma bin Laden was some where in Afghanistan not lunching with Saddam Hussein.

So taking the war to the terrorists? I wish.
All valid points. But unless you want to reinstate a military draft or can convince our allies to send in troops, I'm afraid we're stuck solely in Iraq and Afghanistan.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 12:02 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


All valid points. But unless you want to reinstate a military draft or can convince our allies to send in troops, I'm afraid we're stuck solely in Iraq and Afghanistan.
True, true. And I don't think we should be leaving Iraq anytime soon either. We're there now, so we're going to have finish what we started, as ill conceived as it was.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 12:11 PM   #49
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Keith lays it out well.
http://crooksandliars.com/

Keith Olbermann takes a “look back” at Bush’s first months in office leading up to 9/11
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 12:20 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


So you're saying it's a good thing we went into Iraq otherwise we'd have had a whole bunch more 9/11's by now?
Just a reminder. Which president signed a bill into law with the following language?

Quote:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
(hint) He got pissed over the weekend.

Iraq was only part of a new aggressive policy towards terrorism. One could certainly conclude that Iraq has contributed negativley, but I would argue that taken as a whole, the Bush War on Terror has been a success.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 12:45 PM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Iraq was only part of a new aggressive policy towards terrorism. One could certainly conclude that Iraq has contributed negativley, but I would argue that taken as a whole, the Bush War on Terror has been a success.


yes, but nowhere has ANYONE other than Bush thought that a full scale, unilateral invasion of iraq, while still having troops in Afghanistan, was a good idea. no government, other than ours, even thought the WMD intelligence was actionable enough to warrant a full scale invasion.

defend the Iraq War all you want. but don't say others supported the policy when the never did. Clinton seems to be saying that they would support efforts to remove Hussein, which in the context of the late 1990s would mean working with anti-Saddam forces on the ground in Iraq, NOT invading and then occupying the country, something that Bush 1 was unwilling to do.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 12:47 PM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Not if your goal is the prevention of terror attacks against Americans. Zero is a pretty good result is it not?

Have there been missteps, setbacks, some questions of constitutionality, and IMO a huge blunder in the execution and timing of the Iraqi invasion, sure. But what's the alternative and can it achieve the same result?


we have oceans and homeland security to thank for that.

Iraq has nothing to do with the lack of attacks on the US since 9-11, and as the NIE has verified, the Jihadist movement has spread with Iraq as the "cause celebre" that recruits angry young men to it's cause.

the alternative would have been a successful invasion and occupation and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. get that done with, and then deal with the rest of this.

you'll also notice that our most ardent Iraq War supporter doesn't even think it's about terrorism. he thinks it's about oil, and the vauge "regional stability," but insofar as how regional stability threatens the world's oil supply (though it's euphamized as "energy supply").

Iraq and terror had nothing to do with one another. until now.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-28-2006, 02:41 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:42 PM
If the Administration had stuck to its guns in Afghanistan the Taliban wouldn't have any power there anymore. Unfortunately, it does. There is a new article by Wesley Clark that argues that we aren't winning the war against the Taliban.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 04:07 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




yes, but nowhere has ANYONE other than Bush thought that a full scale, unilateral invasion of iraq, while still having troops in Afghanistan, was a good idea. no government, other than ours, even thought the WMD intelligence was actionable enough to warrant a full scale invasion.

defend the Iraq War all you want. but don't say others supported the policy when the never did. Clinton seems to be saying that they would support efforts to remove Hussein, which in the context of the late 1990s would mean working with anti-Saddam forces on the ground in Iraq, NOT invading and then occupying the country, something that Bush 1 was unwilling to do.
The United States, United Kingdom and Australia all participated in the initial ground invasion of Iraq. More than 25 countries sent troops after the initial invasion, including Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain. Multiple UN resolutions authorized the invasion including UN resolution 1441 and once the initial invasion was over, UN resolution 1483 authorized the occupation. There is NOTHING unilateral about the invasion of Iraq, and if you can described the 2003 war as being inilateral, then you could also describe the 1991 Gulf War as unilateral as well.

Its not a matter of "actionable intelligence" but whether Saddam has verifiably disarmed or not. That was the criteria that was set up for whether there would be further military action or not in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire. Its a well known fact that intelligence agencies under-estimated Saddam's WMD programs prior to the first Gulf War, based on what UN inspectors found in Iraq. That is why further military action would primarily be based on Saddam's level of cooperation and whether he was meeting the requirments of complete and verifiable disarmament.

Bill Clinton went on Larry King Live and stated he supported the actions that Bush was about to take in March 2003 just days before the invasion. His wife supported it as well.

The Clinton adminstration DID support anti-Saddam forces many times during the 1990s, and these efforts were a total failure as Saddam easily wiped out such forces. It became evident to Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's #1 National Security Staff member on Iraq in the late 1990s, that the only solution to the threat posed by Saddam was to remove him.

The reason Bush 1 did not go to Baghdad is because they had succeeded in getting Saddam to agree to a large number of serious demands in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement and given the beating the Iraqi military to in the war, plus continued sanctions, the eventual complete disarmament of Saddam within two years through inspections, it was felt that Saddam would be so unlikely to do anything like he did in 1990 again, and would be out of power at least by 1996.

It was the least costly road, and if it had worked like that, it would have been great. Unfortunately, Saddam remained in power and by 1995, inspections and disarmament were not complete and Saddam was completely refusing to cooperate on the issue most of the time. Then in the late 1990s, sanctions and the embargo almost completely fell apart with the entire border with Syria completely open to any sort of trade by 2000.

The world in 1991 was also a very different place than that of 2003. Despite the Cold War coming to an end, there were still a half million Soviet Troops in Eastern Germany plus another half million in Poland, Czechleslovakia, and Hungary. Despite warmer relations and Nuclear and conventional disarmament treaties in place, everyone new there was the risk that the situation there could be reversed and that raised many questions about having a large occupation force in Iraq given the potential difficulties in Europe if the political situation in the Soviet Union suddenly reversed. In August of 1991, it almost did for 3 days as there was a coup attempt in the Soviet Union. No one knows what would have happened if the coup had succeeded, but it shows the risk were indeed there at the time.

Regardless, had Saddam refused to the ceacefire agreement and had continued to fight on, several US Army divisions were ready to drive towards Baghdad if given the order. Several smaller US units were within a 100 miles of the capital already along the Tigris Euphrates River. If Saddam had not surrended to US and coalition demands, combat operations would have continued.

Its ironic, but there were many Democrats in 1992 who actually used the slogan, "he did not finish the job" in response to Bush talking up the 1991 Gulf War. There was strong criticism used in the 1992 Presidential campaign and afterwards about Bush stopping to early or not finishing the job. Given what was known back in March of 1991 and the situation that the world was in at the time, I think Bush Sr. made the right choice. The world had yet to learn at the time just how dangerous Saddam was, and that he was so strong that only a full scale military invasion would be able to remove him from power. The inspections, his lack of cooperation then total defiance, the crumbling of sanctions and the weapons embargo, the inability of anti-Saddam forces to do anything to his strength, his successful resistence of repeated US airstrikes and his ability to continue on in power were not foreseen back in March 1991, except that the Ceacefire agreement did allow the coalition to use all necessary means to bring about enforcement of all subsequent resolutions through resolution 678. Despite that, no one really believed that Saddam would still be in power within 5 years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 04:23 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





the alternative would have been a successful invasion and occupation and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. get that done with, and then deal with the rest of this.

The current occupation of Afghanistan is the most successful occupation of the country in its history. Just in terms of casualties suffered by the occupying country, the United States has taken 173 killed by hostile fire over the past 5 years in Afghanistan. By comparison, the Soviet military had taken 7,223 killed by hostile fire 5 years into their occupation of the Afghanistan.

The United States faces multiple threats, and it does not have the luxury of ignoring all but one of these threats so it can concentrate on it and "get it done". Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are longterm operation that will take years, but if there is a crises in North Korea, or something somewhere else in the world that threatens US security, the United States is not going to wait until the war in Afghanistan is over to respond. All you do by waiting is allow the threat to materialize and do intolerable damage to the country and the world.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 04:52 AM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:42 AM
The job wasn't finished in 1991, and it was handled in the only way it could be in the 1990's - a way that yielded a decade of suffering for the Iraqi people and created a goal for Al Qaeda to be set towards.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 10:47 AM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:42 PM
eh .. forget it.

life's too short.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2006, 12:10 PM   #58
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,448
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White
The more I watch this interview, the more I think that Clinton's outburst was mostly calculated.
both parties got exactly what they wanted out of this "interview"
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 11-27-2006, 06:35 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 03:42 PM
http://www.nysun.com/article/44113

By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
November 27, 2006


Following in President Clinton's footsteps, a prominent Democratic congressman yesterday accused a Fox News anchor of conducting a skewed interview designed to make Democrats look bad.

"I've got to say, Chris, you have an odd view of balance," Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts told the host of "Fox News Sunday," Chris Wallace. "I am struck by the tenor of your questions. You advertise this as giving us a chance to talk about what we're going to do, but everything is aimed at trying to put us in a kind of a bad light and look at the most controversial and not very representative things that we plan to do," Mr. Frank said.

Mr. Frank said Mr. Wallace's questions improved after the on-air criticism. Asked how fair Fox is when compared to other news outlets, the congressman said the network is "substantially worse."

"Chris is actually one of the better ones," Mr. Frank added. "Some of them just cut you off if they don't agree with you. I think Fox is by far the most biased news medium in which I ever get involved."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-27-2006, 06:40 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:42 PM
Barney Frank is a laugh riot. he's always great on Bill Maher.

must be the gay charm gene.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com