Ovedya Posted January 27, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted January 27, 2004 CLINTON AND HIS ADMINISTRATION was responsible for telling the world that hussein had WMD. not bush. bush just figured 17 resolutions was 16 too many and followed through with clinton's empty threats. This is also ridiculous. How can you just excuse Bush like that? He is responsible to verify that these things are true before using it as an excuse to send young Americans off to die in Iraq chasing weapons that don't exist. He can't blame Clinton for his own mistakes and neither can you. No....Clinton sent young men and women off to die in South Africa and Bosnia. The only difference is that he had the U.N.'s blessings. Clinton was a good little puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted January 27, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I'll be the first to say that Saddam being out of power is a good thing. But it could have been accomplished without a full scale war and without such casualties as have occured to date. Bush will have to answer to God for the blood on his hands. Sure glad I'm not him. Ask yourself where we would be today had we not stopped Saddam Hussein. Millions more would have been dead because our president would have listened to the minority 30% of Americans who opposed going to Iraq. There's an old expression in the military regarding the rules of war: Rule #1: People die. Rule #2: You can't do anything about Rule #1. America can't just stick its collective head in the sand when the safety and security of our country is in danger. And it cannot ignore the pleas for help from the helpless. The truth is, the Iraqi people were begging for help from America, and Clinton ignored the clear and present danger Iraq posed to us during his entire administration. He ignorred the problem of terrorist threats to our country, he ignored the terrorist factions promising to attack the U.S., he ignored the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq, and when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time, he concocted some lame speech on how we were going to prosecute those responsible - then he ran back to the oval office where Ms. Lewinski was waiting. He did absolutely nothing to protect our country from attacks by terrorist groups. He dropped the whole problem in G.W.'s lap and waited for something to happen. Talk about evil??? It's more evil to go to war against terror groups that attacked us on our soil - something that has not taken place since the Revolutionary war - and to remove despotic killers and supporters of terror from power, than to do absolutely nothing about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 27, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I do not have the desire to continue arguing sematics. But I would like to propose to you, River, that "taking out" a county's leader is not so easy. Our covert operations aren't that crafty and capable. And besides, what would have happened had a sniper successfully shot and killed Hussein? What would have happened to the country then? What if one of his sons were put in power? No, Hussein would have just been heralded as a martyr, and the US would have considered even more tyrinacle(sp?) than it is even now. Politics is a messy and complicated business. If somehow the "backdoor" political history of the past 1000 years were made know, I believe we would all shocked, angry, horrified,a nd/or sickened. Make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted January 27, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.50 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 27, 2004 What Neb says is true River. Remember the Bay of Pigs? Well, of course you don't! You weren't even a young whippersnapper then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 i have two questions.... how many resolutions to use militarty force, including war, would have been enough to appease the appeasers? (i wonder how many of the appeasers would give their kids 17 chances to obey, without consequences....) and how, with only FOUR countries who backed out of the unanimous 1441, and 60 still supporting it, can bush be accused of "single-handedly" starting this war? oh wait, a couple more questions... wasn't the war started on 9/11/01? that wasn't bush, people. and lastly, of the four countries that backed out, how many of them were afraid their duplicity would be discovered for following through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted January 27, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted January 27, 2004 G-Man: If you read back through my posts you'll find that I am very grateful that Saddam is out of power. No arguments from me on that issue. However, given the inetllegence available to our military isn't it realsitic to assume that Saddam could have been taken out without a full scale war? My problem isn't with Saddam's removal at all -- it's with a President starting a war when it could have been avoided. If Bush wants to go and take out ALL the evil dictsators one by one I'd support it. But he doesn't have to have a war to do it. Clinton made his mistakes there is no question of that. And yes he had the UN approval. So what? If this world is to continue to coexist peacefully we need something like the UN to keep renegade leaders like Bush from single handly starting WWIII. The UN isn't perfect but it is the only checks and balance system this world has. God Bless ya, Brother. I do not believe that it would have been possible to remove Saddam Hussein from power without military intervention. Have you seen the pictures of his palaces? The guy was not only stealing from his own people - torturing, and executing them - he was skimming money from the oil for food program, and other humanitarian efforts. You admit that Clinton made mistakes. That's good. I've always respected your level-headedness. But G.W. also makes mistakes, no? Perhaps the war in Iraq is a mistake - perhaps it is not. I think time is the best test of this. Right now, however, it is impossible to tell one way or another. I believe that he did the right thing - perhaps all of the aspects of this effort were best decided upon - but overall I think it was the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted January 27, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Thanks River! Well, I think that for the sake of moving on I can close this thread. It seems like all the points have been exausted anyway. So without further adeu... Much Grace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts