For those of you who view the U.S. presence in Iraq as an indefensible Republican adventure, I suggest to you that Bill Clinton would also have pursued this war, and has, in fact, defended Bush's decision to undertake it:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/
Moreover, Clinton's former CIA director James Woolsey has argued that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the first World Trade Center bombing, and in 2002 said "Iraq can only be dealt with effectively by military action...Iraq is like Hitler's Germany in the mid-1930s. There's no sense waiting, as the situation will only get worse." That's not Dick Cheney, people, that's a Democratic appointee.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/24/230153.shtml
Note also that Kerry did not run against the war, he ran against Bush's handling of it. One of the keys to his platform was getting Europe and the rest of the world more involved:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html#1
The involvement of Britain is also a bit of a tipoff - Tony Blair is not a member of the Republican party.
So, my question is this. Which of the following options do you think the U.S. should now adopt?:
1) Pull out of Iraq and leave it to its fate
2) Energetically fight the insurgents and try to stabilize the country
3) Retreat to our bases and let the Iraqi government try to handle things
4) ???
And please don't suggest we turn this over to the UN. The UN has a horrific track record, as the survivors of this situation can attest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm
And their current performance in Darfur is not inspiring:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4006709.stm
It's easy enough to vilify this administration, and God knows they have earned the disrespect of millions, but seriously, what do you think America should do?
Originally posted by lloydkDoor no1. And Clinton may have said things about Iraq and may have been a screwup in other areas but he did not invade and occupy Iraq; even GW's dad knew that would be an unholy mess.
For those of you who view the U.S. presence in Iraq as an indefensible Republican adventure, I suggest to you that Bill Clinton would also have pursued this war, and has, in fact, defended Bush's decision to undertake it:
http://www.cnn. ...[text shortened]... t of millions, but seriously, what do you think America should do?
Originally posted by lloydkHarry S Truman had a plaque on his desk in the oval office , it read:
For those of you who view the U.S. presence in Iraq as an indefensible Republican adventure, I suggest to you that Bill Clinton would also have pursued this war, and has, in fact, defended Bush's decision to undertake it:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/
Moreover, Clinton's former CIA director James Woolsey has argued that Saddam Hussein ...[text shortened]... they have earned the disrespect of millions, but seriously, what do you think America should do?
"THE BUCK STOPS HERE"
Bush is president its his buck.
Here what America should do :
1) get back withing the bounds of international law
2) do 1 til it gets it right
3) keep doing 2
Originally posted by lloydkOf coure the minute I wrote this, the Economist magazine pubished an article saying many American neoconservatives regard Tony Blair as one of their own:
The involvement of Britain is also a bit of a tipoff - Tony Blair is not a member of the Republican party.
"What distinguishes the neo-con approach to foreign policy is the conviction that, by and large, democracies don't go to war with each other; and that powerful countries have both an interest and a moral duty to increase the number of democratic governments in the world. Neo-cons don't think about defending interests but also about extending values. In an interview given to the Times just after the American election, Blair went out of his way to confirm what [American neo-cons] had said:
"When the Americans say we want to extend...democracy and human rights through the Middle East...people say, well, that is part of the neo-conservative agenda. Actually if you put it in different language, it's a progressive agenda."
So I stand corrected, Blair looks like a rock-ribbed Republican!
Does anyone care what billy the blow would have done or not? This is why Dems will never get it. They still don't get the fact that a silly thing like getting a blow job under the desk while terrorists plotted the destruction of the Cole eliminates that silly turd from concideration in the books of history.
The truth is that he was so occupied with defending against his lying to a grand jury.... that he lost all abilty to lead. He is a leader of Democrats. Wow. I wonder what second prize can be. Maybe the lead net hawler on a boat out of Nantucket?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyApparently not a Clinton fan. But the point remains - EVEN HE would have attacked Iraq. He thinks it was the right thing to do.
Does anyone care what billy the blow would have done or not? This is why Dems will never get it. They still don't get the fact that a silly thing like getting a blow job under the desk while terrorists plotted the destruction of the C ...[text shortened]... rize can be. Maybe the lead net hawler on a boat out of Nantucket?
Same with Hillary. She doesn't regret voting in favor of the war. She complains about the way Bush has handled it, but, like Kerry, her husband, and most other leading moderate Democrats, the war's ok with her:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
Now StarValley, surely you don't have anything unkind to say about Bill Clinton's thoughtful and educated wife?
Originally posted by lloydkNo, you are being disingenous; the title of the thread is "Clinton's War" which it assuredly was not. Whether he would or would not have done the same thing is irrelevant; he didn't and Bush did. So, who's war is it again?
Apparently not a Clinton fan. But the point remains - EVEN HE would have attacked Iraq. He thinks it was the right thing to do.
Same with Hillary. She doesn't regret voting in favor of the war. She complains about Bush has handled it, but, like Kerry, her husband, and most other leading moderate Democrats, the war's ok with her:
http://www.cnn.com/2 ...[text shortened]... urely you don't have anything unkind to say about Bill Clinton's thoughtful and educated wife?
Originally posted by no1marauderTo pull out now would lead to a bloody civil war. Maybe Iran would step in to stop it.
Door no1. And Clinton may have said things about Iraq and may have been a screwup in other areas but he did not invade and occupy Iraq; even GW's dad knew that would be an unholy mess.
Originally posted by no1marauderBush started the war, Hillary (and Kerry) voted for it, and Bill supported it.
No, you are being disingenous; the title of the thread is "Clinton's War" which it assuredly was not. Whether he would or would not have done the same thing is irrelevant; he didn't and Bush did. So, who's war is it again?
My point with the deliberately provocative title is that this is not Bush's war, it is the logical outcome of 15 years of U.S. policy toward Iraq, and had broad support from Democrats.
As dishonest as Bush and his team have been in selling the war, if you think a Democratic administration wouldn't have done it, you're kidding yourself.
Of course the Democrats say they would have done it BETTER, but they would say that, wouldn't they?
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the upshot of the neo-con theory of Democracy-by-force is that Iraq (and any other target countries) will have to fight bloody civil wars before democratic states can be established.
What do you think is going on now?
Basically, the neo-cons are selling you a severe ethical calculation. They figure everyone should be free, even if a bunch of people have to die in the process. This is an eerie echo to me of the old communist philosophy of bringing the revolution to the world, and brings to mind the Stalin quote that "in the future there will be fewer, but better Russians."
Originally posted by lloydkNo, it's A logical outcome, but not THE logical outcome. As I mentioned even Bush, Sr. stated he didn't "go to Baghdad" in 1991 because he realized that the occupation of Iraq would be a mess and disstabilizing to the whole region (not that it was terribly stable to begin with). The Neocons who have GW's ear were around then saying the whole nonsense about bringing "democracy" (read pro-Western governments) throughout the Middle East by force if necessary, but no one was buying. I can't say for certain what would have happened if Gore was President and neither can you, but it seems possible, if not certain, that he would have been more willing to work with the UN and give inspections more time. It is also possible that he wouldn't have asked for a war resolution right before the mid-term elections (most congressional Democrats voted against it). So your speculation is just that.
Bush started the war, Hillary (and Kerry) voted for it, and Bill supported it.
My point with the deliberately provocative title is that this is not Bush's war, it is the logical outcome of 15 years of U.S. policy toward Iraq, and had b ...[text shortened]... ould have done it BETTER, but they would say that, wouldn't they?
EDIT: In response to your post, Neocons use the words "freedom" and "democracy" to mean pro-Western, free market, economy open to foreign capitalists not freedom in the sense most of us think. The Shah was part of the "Free World" to their way of thinking; Israel is the only "democracy" in the Middle East even though it denies basic human rights to the Palestinians. Thus, these terms are basically propaganda to further a global a Western dominated world economy world culture that they favor on ideological and some on religious grounds.
Originally posted by lloydk1) Pull out of Iraq and leave it to its fate
For those of you who view the U.S. presence in Iraq as an indefensible Republican adventure, I suggest to you that Bill Clinton would also have pursued this war, and has, in fact, defended Bush's decision to undertake it:
http://www.cnn. ...[text shortened]... t of millions, but seriously, what do you think America should do?
2) Energetically fight the insurgents and try to stabilize the country
3) Retreat to our bases and let the Iraqi government try to handle things
The question is - who should run Iraq? There is only one possible answer - Iraqis. And the only way to get Iraqis running the place is to have an election.
Points 1 and 2 is the US deciding what they will do to Iraq. Point 3 sounds better - but there is no legitimate government in Iraq because the quisling Alawi has been appointed by an invading army, so his decisions have no validity.
The Americans have made this mess and it is up to them to clean it up. They have to get a free and fair election in January - and accept the outcome. If the new government calls for an immediate withdrawal of US troops and a radical Islamic republic, so be it.
Originally posted by steerpikeI get the feeling the U.S. would have been better off leaving Saddam in power. Since, monster tho he may have been. he wasnt our monster.
[b]1) Pull out of Iraq and leave it to its fate
2) Energetically fight the insurgents and try to stabilize the country
3) Retreat to our bases and let the Iraqi government try to handle things
The question is - who should run Iraq? There is only one possible answer - Iraqis. And the only way to get Iraqis running the place is to have an electio ...[text shortened]... ment calls for an immediate withdrawal of US troops and a radical Islamic republic, so be it.
[/b]
After seeing the outpouring of love for the Iraqis that Bush supporter have shown in this forum you'd think their solution would be to put him back!
I just find it laughable that anybody could possibly believe that leaving Western troops in Iraq for a day longer is helpful to a solution. People, THEY'RE THE PROBLEM to be solved, not the solution to the Iraqi "problem". If US troops left tomorrow, the human beings in Iraq would try to solve their problems like we do here; they really don't need us wiser and more benevolent foreigners to tell them how to conduct their business. If civil war continued, well eventually it would get sorted out one way or another. It's their country, they'd resolve the situation in some manner and that's their business. Obviously the US and others should be responsible for repairing some of the immense damage we've done there, but we certainly have no right to demand anything of the Iraqi people particulary what type of government they should have. If leaving tomorrow is too "cold turkey" for you to bear, try this: Set a January 1, 2005 date certain for withdrawal with an immediate ceasefire and cessation of raids and aggressive patrols, get the factions together to negotiate (even the ones we don't like) and then wave bye-bye. Simple.