Iraq war, the worst foreign policy mistake un US History

Cosmo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

You directed this post at the wrong person.

...
Okay... fixed it.
I was reading through the thread and got to the one that talked about the number of dead in comparison.
Thanx.

Abuskedti

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

It's wacky, crazy, cool Clinton quote time! These are dedicated to the smartest guy in the thread... Byrnzie!


"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Wait a minute... One more time for the kids in the back...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, "While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."


Whoops! That's all for now!

Clinton, nor anyone else, had invaded and occupied Iraq.

Only Bush did that..

Please don't confuse political propaganda for intelligence -

The decision to Invade and invade and occupy belonged the Bush and his subordinates.

those in congress who supported the presidents right to defend the nation and to make such decisions - does not consitiute a desire to invade or occupy. Our government has an executive branch and our congress respected that after 911 as Mr. Bush spewed propaganda designed to mislead everyone - including those he is charged to represent.

Those days are gone - though sitting in the office, President Bush has lost credibility and respect - Congress can no longer repspect his words or his actions.. Today, congress will have to micro manage every proposal for this president and his staff.. he not only can not be trusted to be truthful, but he has also proven unable to make responsible decisions.

We are in the midst of a war - but no longer have an executive branch..

If you are so worried about your party - you should lead the charge in removing this embarassment, this poison to mankind so he can take us no deeper. Then you can again spin these things in support of a party that you can honestly say is worthy of something.

FredFlintstone

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

It's wacky, crazy, cool Clinton quote time! These are dedicated to the smartest guy in the thread... Byrnzie!


"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Wait a minute... One more time for the kids in the back...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, "While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."


Whoops! That's all for now!

Wake me up when you get to the part about Clinton advocating a full scale invasion of Iraq. Never. Regime change? sure....but not at the cost of a US invasion - BECAUSE HE AND PRES BUSH 41 WERE TOO SMART - W wanted to play GI Joe.

ThumbingMyWay32

Abuskedti wrote:

Please don't confuse political propaganda for intelligence -

LMAO No futher questions...

angelica

scot88 wrote:

because the american people could have forseen all of this prior to voting for him :rolleyes:

A mistake is when we think something is okay, but in hindsight we come to realize how erroneous it actually was. We make an error. Hence the applicability of the word "mistake" in this context.

ThumbingMyWay32

FredFlintstone wrote:

Wake me up when you get to the part about Clinton advocating a full scale invasion of Iraq. Never. Regime change? sure....but not at the cost of a US invasion - BECAUSE HE AND PRES BUSH 41 WERE TOO SMART - W wanted to play GI Joe.

Looks like you wont be waking up for a while.

Certainly explains your politics.

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

Now were all responsible for the War?

Who would you like to think is responsible for the war if not America and it's people?

I do agree Monday morning quarterbacking is not fair in that hindsight is 20/20. Still, life itself tells us that accountability falls squarely on the shoulders of those accountable.

ThumbingMyWay32

angelica wrote:

Who would you like to think is responsible for the war if not America and it's people?

I do agree Monday morning quarterbacking is not fair in that hindsight is 20/20. Still, life itself tells us that accountability falls squarely on the shoulders of those accountable.

Republicans and Democrats were responsible up until around the beginning of 2004. Then, things started getting a little tough. Democrats are no longer responsible. Just ask them.

Hope this clears things up a little!

Cosmo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

It's wacky, crazy, cool Clinton quote time! These are dedicated to the smartest guy in the thread... Byrnzie!


"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Wait a minute... One more time for the kids in the back...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, "While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."


Whoops! That's all for now!

...
I think to be fair... we should take those comment in the context from which they were spoken.
Full Transcript:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/121798iraq-clinton-speech.html
...
Most came from debates about the U.S. sponsored U.N. Ecomomic Sanctions set against Hussein's Iraq as a result of the first Gulf War. There were parties who believed the sanctions should be lifted and Iraq allowed to trade freely in the market. Other comments were made after Hussein continued to interrupt U.N. Weapons Inspections by limiting access to weapons insprctors, a clear violation of the agreed upon cease fire that ended the war.
When placed in those contexts, they make case for the continuing sanctions and military No-Fly Zones established by the George H.W. Bush administration.

ThumbingMyWay32

Cosmo wrote:

...
I think to be fair... we should take those comment in the context from which they were spoken.
Full Transcript:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/121798iraq-clinton-speech.html
...
Most came from debates about the U.S. sponsored U.N. Ecomomic Sanctions set against Hussein's Iraq as a result of the first Gulf War. There were parties who believed the sanctions should be lifted and Iraq allowed to trade freely in the market. Other comments were made after Hussein continued to interrupt U.N. Weapons Inspections by limiting access to weapons insprctors, a clear violation of the agreed upon cease fire that ended the war.
When placed in those contexts, they make case for the continuing sanctions and military No-Fly Zones established by the George H.W. Bush administration.

Nah, all of those quotes were taken from a single article from December 18th, 1998, as reasoning, before he ordered action on the Democratic People's Republic of Iraq.

angelica

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Republicans and Democrats were responsible up until around the beginning of 2004. Then, things started getting a little tough. Democrats are no longer responsible. Just ask them.

Hope this clears things up a little!

Thanks for your help!

I'm going to have to agree with you, if what you are saying is that those who are not in support of the war are not responsible for supporting and therefore perpetuating the war.

Cosmo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Nah, all of those quotes were taken from a single article from December 18th, 1998, as reasoning, before he ordered action on the Democratic People's Republic of Iraq.

...
That's the transcript I posted. to be fair... read the entire transcript and recall the context of the time and place in history. It was after the Gulf War and Hussein had been disrupting U.N. Weapons Inspectors by denyin them access to certain facilities. Those facilities (that Hussein had closed off) were the ones destroyed by U.S./British joint airstrikes. There were (mostly Conservative pundits) that complained that these tactics were a 'Wag The Dog' tactic to divert media/public attention away from the Monica Lewinsky circus.
...
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat on this and just want the truth to be put out there for people to read and evaluate on their own... to come up with their own conclusions.
This is why you don't see me posting single comments without including the accompanying full transcript from whence it was taken.

ThumbingMyWay32

angelica wrote:

Thanks for your help!

I'm going to have to agree with you, if what you are saying is that those who are not in support of the war are not responsible for supporting and therefore perpetuating the war.

Actually, what I said is that Republicans and Democrats supported the war initially. And as is the case during any military conflict involving the United States, we were unable to withdraw and return home within 15 minutes of arrival. Therefore, Democrats no longer support the war. That's really as complicated as it ever gets.

Though I don't believe anyone is supporting an eternal war in Iraq.

ThumbingMyWay32

Cosmo wrote:

...
That's the transcript I posted. to be fair... read the entire transcript and recall the context of the time and place in history. It was after the Gulf War and Hussein had been disrupting U.N. Weapons Inspectors by denyin them access to certain facilities. Those facilities (that Hussein had closed off) were the ones destroyed by U.S./British joint airstrikes. There were (mostly Conservative pundits) that complained that these tactics were a 'Wag The Dog' tactic to divert media/public attention away from the Monica Lewinsky circus.
...
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat on this and just want the truth to be put out there for people to read and evaluate on their own... to come up with their own conclusions.
This is why you don't see me posting single comments without including the accompanying full transcript from whence it was taken.

I'm well aware of the time and place. I'm also well aware of why President Clinton decided to do what he did, and the reasoning behind it. But, why would President Clinton attack a country he claimed had WMDs, but didn't?

angelica

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Actually, what I said is that Republicans and Democrats supported the war initially. And as is the case during any military conflict involving the United States, we were unable to withdraw and return home within 15 minutes of arrival.

Thanks for the clarification. Right. So whomever supported the war at any time is responsible for that support, no matter what political affiliation. I agree.

Therefore, Democrats no longer support the war. That's really as complicated as it ever gets.

Nice little segue. So, are we in agreement that when people support something, they are responsible for that choice of support? And when they withdraw that support, they are then no longer responsible for supporting that thing?

Though I don't believe anyone is supporting an eternal war in Iraq.

Maybe not an eternal one, and yet I hear support of the war being rationalized and justified all the time, still. I'm not saying that's right or wrong--that's for each person to decide for themselves. Because ultimately, we are each fully and 100% accountable to ourselves and to life for what we commit to and support, just as for what we choose not to support.

ThumbingMyWay32

angelica wrote:

Nice little segue. So, are we in agreement that when people support something, they are responsible for that choice of support? And when they withdraw that support, they are then no longer responsible for supporting that thing?

No, what I'm saying is... If you're a responsible representative of the United States, hold yourself accountable for the decisions you make. Don't pass the buck when things get tough as a result of a decision you personally were responsible for making. Attempting to mask political decisions because of future political aspirations becomes rather nauseating.

You may be speaking of the American public. I'm speaking about American representatives in congress.

Cosmo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

I'm well aware of the time and place. I'm also well aware of why President Clinton decided to do what he did, and the reasoning behind it. But, why would President Clinton attack a country he claimed had WMDs, but didn't?

...
Because it was a suspecion. Hussein denied U.N. Weapons Inspectors access to these facilities. The penalty for that was destruction of those suspected facilities. Whether we knew or not that weapons research, development, manufacture, distribution or storage was going on behind those locked doors was something only Hussein knew and he wasn't letting anyone else know the truth.
Clinton was doing what every President in that case should have done... inspection denied, huh? Well, tell the inspectors to run for cover because the Air Force is going to used their 2,000 pound laser guided munitions to crack that lock. Bush Sr. would have done the same thing and so SHOULD have Bush Jr. Weapons Inspections, economic sanctions and No-Fly Zones instituted by George H.W. Bush were working and Hussein had to pay the price for thwarting access... a complete leveling of the facility in question. BOOM! If there was something to hide in there... it ain't there any more.
...
I don't see a good arguement for NOT leveling those facilities.

angelica

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

No, what I'm saying is... If you're a responsible representative of the United States, hold yourself accountable for the decisions you make. Don't pass the buck when things get tough as a result of a decision you personally were responsible for making. Attempting to mask political decisions because of future political aspirations becomes rather nauseating.

You may be speaking of the American public. I'm speaking about American representatives in congress.

My view on accountability is that people are accountable for what they do--to life. It goes far beyond our hands as people. So while we can see by looking around that there are numerous people that do weaselly acts in the world, I am comforted knowing people live the consequences of their weasellyness in every moment. They live with lies, contradictions, falsity, etc. These people may try to pass the buck, but really they cannot, because they just ARE accountable and life takes care of them. Payback. In my mind that people are dodgy is irrelevent. They are as good as taken care of. And still, I can understand people wanting to also hold them accountable on a human to human level--I'd expect no less, and this is part of the overall accountability payment at this point in time.

In terms of what I refer to, I am talking more about each individual, but that also includes anyone at any level of government. Accountability is simple, really. So if someone honestly recognizes a mistake and owns it they become free to move on with new behaviour that is fueled by the productive change, and they get the consequences of that. If people make a mistake, act weaselly and try to duck and weave for that mistake, they will be trapped in that place until they are able to move through that. For some people, they learn to tolerate living in an inner prison. It's not the life for me, that's for sure. Contrary to the weaselly methods, I seek to clarify and free/liberate myself in each moment. To each their own, I guess.

ThumbingMyWay32

Cosmo wrote:

...
Because it was a suspecion. Hussein denied U.N. Weapons Inspectors access to these facilities. The penalty for that was destruction of those suspected facilities. Whether we knew or not that weapons research, development, manufacture, distribution or storage was going on behind those locked doors was something only Hussein knew and he wasn't letting anyone else know the truth.
Clinton was doing what every President in that case should have done... inspection denied, huh? Well, tell the inspectors to run for cover because the Air Force is going to used their 2,000 pound laser guided munitions to crack that lock. Bush Sr. would have done the same thing and so SHOULD have Bush Jr. Weapons Inspections, economic sanctions and No-Fly Zones instituted by George H.W. Bush were working and Hussein had to pay the price for thwarting access... a complete leveling of the facility in question. BOOM! If there was something to hide in there... it ain't there any more.
...
I don't see a good arguement for NOT leveling those facilities.

The only thing hiding in the facility were innocent civilians. Not a very digestible thought. Right? This is hiliarious... It was OK for Clinton to authorize the bombings of buildings in which he had no idea of the contents.

Cosmo wrote:

"If there was something to hide in there... it ain't there any more."

I bet Bush would be thrilled if he were afforded the same simplistic assessments of his actions.

Last Exodus

Cosmo wrote:

Dead U.S. servicemen are not points on a scoreboard. If ONE soldier is killed based on a political whim of our leaders... that is too many.
...
It was immoral for U.S. foriegn policy to allow the Viet Nam War to continue to rage for years, after military planners said there was not chance of a declared victory. Washington politicians kept the war going because they did not want to be in office during the first war that was 'lost' by our military. So, they kept it going... civilians controlling the battlefield... just as it is happening today. Let let the civilians (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) run the first phase... and the Democratic representatives in the House run it from here. And the ones who pay the price are the guys in the Kevlar and BDUs in that desert shithole.

I just find it pretty naseauting that the Democrats who in large voted for this war, are now running on an anti-war campaign. How convenient. Now they are pandering to the voters trying to convince them they are the party of peace. What a crock. They are using the lives or american servicemen overseas as their own political fodder. Sick