Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-05-2009, 10:20 AM   #31
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess
Yes i agree. A little history here.

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War.
Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there
was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

That aside i believe we should have taken Iraq at that time as it would have avoided a lot of problems with that crazy back on his heels. Just my opinion.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda
training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed
i believe we should have gotten out of there.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to
come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum
backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.
When we found nothing we should have left imho.

So i would say yes, Saddam, radical Islamics and Bin Laden started it.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 10:25 AM   #32
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,548
[QUOTE=spence;709431]The USSR was 100% committed and look where it got them.

I believe what stcroixman meant by 100% commitment was, not only a government policy, but the full backing of the people. The USSR NEVER had that. It was a militarily enforced federation of irredentist minded citizens, most of whom didn't see Afghanistan as an important matter. We failed in Vietnam because our populace was persuaded that it was not worth American life. The war against the Iraqi "insurgents" was made difficult because they saw the left's portrayal of the war as another Vietnam and so hoped that continued resistance would, similarly, break the American populist will to fight.

Afghanistan is a very tribal and nationalistic country where war is seen as just a habit.

"Nationalistic country" is redundant. All nations are nationalistic. And, if war is resisted change, war is not only a "habit", but a necessity for those entities who wish to maintain their integrity.

As for the Obama strategy, it's not that complicated. Raise troop levels to provide added security in the hopes of shifting responsibility onto Afghan and Pakistani troops. I believe the expectation is that there will be a NATO presence in the region for a decade or more to come.-spence[QUOTE]

Sounds similar to the Bush strategy. As for NATO, without a US, Afghani, and Pakistani defeat of the Taliban, NATO, as already demonstrated, can do nothing.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 10:30 AM   #33
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,584
see Spence...I had some points
scottw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 10:36 AM   #34
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta.
Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan.

Quote:
And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.
I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 10:44 AM   #35
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
[QUOTE=detbuch;709445]


[COLOR="darkgreen"] All nations are nationalistic.

I would say that is one of our country's problems, we are not nationalistic anymore.
We are a nation split on what we stand for. Where immigrants used to come here, take pride in their citizenship and be grateful for the opportunities,
they left their countries behind and became Americans and believed in our country and what it stood for.

We are becoming more divided everyday. Way to many ideas of who we are and
what we believe to be nationalistic anymore, imho.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 10:55 AM   #36
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest.

-spence
I believe his short term interest was to stop the WOMD and secondly, after we had been there, make it worthwhile to provide a base for long term interests in the region with the Iranian threats.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 11:06 AM   #37
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.


I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs. Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence
A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 11:46 AM   #38
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father really, have you asked them about their relationship?, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan. is this similar to the stimulus marketing plan and the commie care marketing plan?


I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. didn't stop a whole bunch of democrats from claiming that he did and also had evil nuclear intentions "prior to the invasion"...just gets forgotten like the Carter years and Woodrow Wilson...The Syria link is equally without substance prove it. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by everyone?/most people? multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended he was such a kidder to still have them with the possible probable? intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted. he seemed pretty much undaunted be sanctions or resolutions, managed to bribe his way around quite well...

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest OR BOTH!?. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence
you should do seances, you have the ability to magically conjur up the intimate thoughts and dreams of so many people that you've never even met ....

Last edited by scottw; 09-05-2009 at 11:53 AM..
scottw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 12:05 PM   #39
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs.
I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.

Quote:
Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.
This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

Quote:
A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.
You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 12:19 PM   #40
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War. Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.
It's worth noting that we were "drawn" into the Gulf war to protect US oil interests in Saudi Arabia, and that Saudi Arabia paid for about 2/3's the cost of the war!

The reason we didn't take out Saddam was simple. The administration understood it would have been a cluster%$%$%$%$. Even Dick Cheney didn't support the assertion. Colin Powell coined his famous "Pottery Barn" anecdote about Iraq - you break it, you own it.

Bush 41 took a lot of heat for egging on the Shiite's in the south to stand up to Saddam, then doing nothing to help while Saddam's gunships went to work.

Quote:
Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed i believe we should have gotten out of there.
All having nothing to do with Saddam.

Quote:
Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.
This isn't really how it happened though.

Saddam DID let the inspectors in, and the UN inspectors found nothing. Saddam was absolutely hampering the inspection process at first, and more pressure was put on the regime to cooperate.

Before the UN, Hans Blix testified that even though Saddam was not cooperating, it was not compromising the inspection on WMD.

Blix wanted time to finish the report, which was going to state that Saddam had no WMD (the same conclusion that Duelfer came to a few years later) and this obviously conflicted with Bush's war plans which were already in motion.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 06:53 PM   #41
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
Spence, you must not have read the quote of ScottW that i agreed with:

Scottw Quote:
"I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess. "

I never said Saddam had anything to do with the first WTC bombing, the Cole, or the 2nd WTC bombing.
My post was a quick chronological list from my memory of how Saddam,
Al Qaeda and radical Islam started and got us into this mess.

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection
by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.

So he chose to be invaded instead, being the crazy loon he was, and he did
start the Gulf War.

You must have a great memory, remembering Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn"
antidote about Iraq.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 08:29 PM   #42
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.


This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.
-spence
"Spread democracy"--I was using your words. I wouldn't have put it that way. Certainly, democracy cannot be "grown from within" a dictatorship. The dictatorship must first be overthrown. Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them. Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.

Last edited by detbuch; 09-06-2009 at 03:14 AM.. Reason: typo
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 06:44 AM   #43
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.
Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 06:59 AM   #44
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence
uh oh...Spence's Sunday morning tinfoil hat conspiracy talk...

he was actually the chief instigator of an awful lot of bad that was going on in his own country as well as many others....and, you have absolutely no idea what issues we'd be having today had Saddam not invaded Kuwait...are you holding seances again?
scottw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 07:01 AM   #45
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
[COLOR="darkgreen"]Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.
So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

Quote:
I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.
Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!


Quote:
Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them.
Not true, the entire basis for urgency was that Saddam had existing WMD and a relationship with alQaeda.

Quote:
Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.
Going into the war there was certainly much that was unknown, and why the International community was behind Bush with a new inspection regime.

Where it all turned was with the Powell speech.

The inspections were not providing the evidence to justify the war his foreign policy team so dearly wanted. Rather than let Blix finish his report, they "shot the messenger" and pressed forward breaking up the International coalition in the process.

I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 09:04 AM   #46
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence
And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 09:13 AM   #47
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.
This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 09:21 AM   #48
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 9,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?
He's not. I'm pissed at that tract.

I was hoping by now we'd be phasing out of Iraq... Spence hit on a lot of the reasons, but basically, we took SH out, we should have been phasing out then, letting them figure their future out, not us trying to dictate it to them. I've spent the entire war saying 'support the troops, not the war' and that has not changed for me.

A few months-year ago, I was pro-focusing on Afghanistan, but now I fear it is slipping into 'Nam style unwinnable war short of Nuking it, which I am not advocating.. monitor it closely, keep an eye out for Bin laden and Al Queda and get our boys home.

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 12:12 PM   #49
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence
No need for me to read my history and read others opinions,
i lived through it and followed it very closely at the time.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 03:02 PM   #50
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?
Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 03:41 PM   #51
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence
probably all taken out of context


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
scottw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 03:51 PM   #52
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
probably all taken out of context


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Use the search function and you'll probably see my explaining exactly why. We've been down this road before...

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 04:20 PM   #53
Fly Rod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Fly Rod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gloucester Massachusetts
Posts: 2,678
U R right Spence.
Fly Rod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 04:27 PM   #54
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence
Go back and google Clinton's words about Saddam. Sounds like the speach given by Powell prior to Bush removing Saddam from power. His inaction is what led to Saddam laughing at the UN and by the way,IMO, the attack on the Trade Centers.
Bombing an asprin factory during the Lewinsky "crisis" doesn't count as a foreign policy.
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 04:50 PM   #55
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Use the search function and you'll probably see my explaining exactly why. We've been down this road before...

-spence
why would I bother to search for your "old spin" ?
scottw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 04:55 PM   #56
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Go back and google Clinton's words about Saddam. Sounds like the speach given by Powell prior to Bush removing Saddam from power. His inaction is what led to Saddam laughing at the UN and by the way,IMO, the attack on the Trade Centers.
Bombing an asprin factory during the Lewinsky "crisis" doesn't count as a foreign policy.
the dems were pretty consistent on Saddam right up until the point that they realized that they could politicize the war....Spence is finally right about one thing though...we've been around and around on this before, he seems to enjoy revising history....and we have a clown in the White House that could actually create another Vietnam....a QUAGMAYAAAA! as TED would say...

Last edited by scottw; 09-06-2009 at 05:02 PM..
scottw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 05:02 PM   #57
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Go back and google Clinton's words about Saddam. Sounds like the speach given by Powell prior to Bush removing Saddam from power. His inaction is what led to Saddam laughing at the UN and by the way,IMO, the attack on the Trade Centers.
Bombing an asprin factory during the Lewinsky "crisis" doesn't count as a foreign policy.
I've probably read most of them already. You simply can't take a speech from one year and blankly apply it to a situation years into the future. If the intent is to justify war, that's downright reckless and unethical. We all know Clinton thought Iraq was a threat...and that he didn't go to war over it.

As to the bombing of the WTC in 1993, to think that this was triggered by Clinton's Iraq policy is laughable. Please cite some references...

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 05:07 PM   #58
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
why would I bother to search for your "old spin" ?
So you can read and learn.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 08:30 PM   #59
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.
I was using Spence's phrase "spreading democracy" which is a bit disdainful--I wouldn't have thought of such a phrase. Even he admitted that you can't "spread democracy." Perhaps you didn't read that banter back and forth and thought I had made up the phrase. Even so, you kind of made my head spin by equating "spreading democracy" to Imperialism. Almost like saying charity is the work of the devil.

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain. And, WOW, "assassinate"? This is a new method of assassination--warn someone for several months of your intentions, give him opportunities to avoid the "assassination", and after getting him, letting someone else finish the job, then, improving the lot of what and who he owned.

BTW, I wasn't chanting a "spreading democracy" THROUGH WAR mantra. Again, it was a response to Spence. There is, also BTW, a general misconception about the importance of war. So many of us like to quote Santayana's phrase that those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. But we shun, or even more likely, aren't aware of another phrase by him--"there is eternal war in nature." He also said that war is merely resistance to change. So long as the invaded has the will and power to resist the invader, there will be war. And his dictum can be applied, not only to the "human condition" but to all of life, to all of existence. When you are enjoying a "moment of peace", be aware that all around you, and within you, countless wars are taking place. All are wars of survival. And, as Santayana also said, to live well, you must be victorious. Everything you have is a result of some war. Your very life will end when you are to weak to defeat what attacks you every minute of your existence. We are products of war, war informs everything we do. We have learned, through lessons of history, by evolution, to cooperate when it is to our benefit, when it enhances our survival, not when it is for acquiesence to some platonic ideal
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 10:10 PM   #60
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain.
I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them. The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com