I'm watching Tucker Carlson now on MSNBC, as I couldn't take any more research tonight, and he was just blasting Clinton for remarks made in the ME, Essentially Clinton said that he was FOR the removal of Saddam, but AGAINST the war. Now, I'm too tired to look up his exact remarks, but this is the sort of thing that drives me nuts about the libs...Make up your friggin mind, if you're against it, you're against it, playing this middle ground thing is what irritates so many American voters and turns them off. Anyway...just a little fodder for the libbies to chew on..

there's other ways to get rid of saddam than by invading his country militarily.

there's other ways to get rid of saddam than by invading his country militarily.

The UN tried to encourage that for the better part of a decade, I don't think it was working.

I'm watching Tucker Carlson now on MSNBC, as I couldn't take any more research tonight, and he was just blasting Clinton for remarks made in the ME, Essentially Clinton said that he was FOR the removal of Saddam, but AGAINST the war. Now, I'm too tired to look up his exact remarks, but this is the sort of thing that drives me nuts about the libs...Make up your friggin mind, if you're against it, you're against it, playing this middle ground thing is what irritates so many American voters and turns them off. Anyway...just a little fodder for the libbies to chew on..
Libs? I don't think so, getting rid of leaders without going to war...was the hallmark of many a Republican administration.

Eisenhower used it Central America and in Iran. Nixon used it in Chile and tried in Angola. Reagan did it in Central America as well. They surrogate wars or CIA interventions. Find some disenfranchised train them next door to the country you want to change leadership...find a few generals in the leaders staff that will turn him over when the time is right and you have the makings of any number of the dozen or more coups the United States has orchestrated since the onset of the Cold War.

This is hardly anything new...what you are doing is proclaiming that only libbies would be so bold as to change leadership without American blood shed...wrong...history shows that it has been attempted to varying degrees of success by both sides. Only rarely do we use our own troops to effect international change...it has been much more successful to rely on homegrown insurrection directed by our government or barring that there is always the economic nugget that is used just as often...but isn't as interesting. (See Pakistan currently for this style of "diplomacy.")

So sorry but your morsel to chew on...turned out to be just a bit mealy.

Libs? I don't think so, getting rid of leaders without going to war...was the hallmark of many a Republican administration.

Eisenhower used it Central America and in Iran. Nixon used it in Chile and tried in Angola. Reagan did it in Central America as well. They surrogate wars or CIA interventions. Find some disenfranchised train them next door to the country you want to change leadership...find a few generals in the leaders staff that will turn him over when the time is right and you have the makings of any number of the dozen or more coups the United States has orchestrated since the onset of the Cold War.

This is hardly anything new...what you are doing is proclaiming that only libbies would be so bold as to change leadership without American blood shed...wrong...history shows that it has been attempted to varying degrees of success by both sides. Only rarely do we use our own troops to effect international change...it has been much more successful to rely on homegrown insurrection directed by our government or barring that there is always the economic nugget that is used just as often...but isn't as interesting. (See Pakistan currently for this style of "diplomacy.")

So sorry but your morsel to chew on...turned out to be just a bit mealy.

Reagan got blasted pretty hard for his surrogate war didn't he? It is also true that the CIA operations had been altered following the Reagan administration, plus the fact that most of those who would have been inclined to rebel against Saddam didn't survive long enough to be trained. He tended to destroy any relaives or loved ones left behind by those who escaped his justice, mafia type incentive to STFU.

as was mentioned, the UN had been working in that direction. a little more time, a few changes in procedure, maybe a little arm-twisting in iraq and among his neghbors, and who knows?

other than that, there's always the black ops, poisn in the drink, bullet to the head, support to an iraqi rebellion, etc.

there's a million things we could have done, short of going to war. how did we get the soviet union to fail without firing a shot? you guys just have a shortsighted fixation on military power. good little neo-cons.

Reagan got blasted pretty hard for his surrogate war didn't he? It is also true that the CIA operations had been altered following the Reagan administration, plus the fact that most of those who would have been inclined to rebel against Saddam didn't survive long enough to be trained. He tended to destroy any relaives or loved ones left behind by those who escaped his justice, mafia type incentive to STFU.
My history lesson had nothing to do with Saddam...it merely indicated the errors in Phys' post and discussed historical facts that exhibit our countries desire to have it both ways. Plus some of our more vacuous posters seem to have never heard of such a thing as a possibilty...making me glad that they chose to post here rather than to run for higher office.

As for Reagan...that was a pretty nice funeral the country threw for him wasn't it...not sure how harshly he was treated. Besides it was all the dead William Casey's fault...right? The problem is that you can't get caught doing what your doing. Ike and his team new this best...Reagan and Kennedy...not so much.

Reagan got blasted pretty hard for his surrogate war didn't he? It is also true that the CIA operations had been altered following the Reagan administration, plus the fact that most of those who would have been inclined to rebel against Saddam didn't survive long enough to be trained. He tended to destroy any relaives or loved ones left behind by those who escaped his justice, mafia type incentive to STFU.

Actually, those who rebelled against Saddam after the Gulf War were betrayed by Bush 41. His statements exhorting Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'athist regime were taken seriously by the Kurds and the Shia in the south. Unfortunately, the material support that was more than hinted at by the U.S. never appeared, and the 'uprisings,' such as they were, brutally and quickly were suppressed.

Reagan got blasted pretty hard for his surrogate war didn't he? It is also true that the CIA operations had been altered following the Reagan administration, plus the fact that most of those who would have been inclined to rebel against Saddam didn't survive long enough to be trained. He tended to destroy any relaives or loved ones left behind by those who escaped his justice, mafia type incentive to STFU.

I agree snake, the economic sanctions had been in place for years, and Saddam igonored them, as far as mediating a coup, I don't think the CIA had the kind of teeth and operational freedom that it had earlier. These were the things that allowed them to perform operations like those that TMB had proposed. Add that to the fact, that Saddam had many people who hated him, yet almost none that would actually go to war with him..They were too scared. One last point, I agree with Tucker, the place Clinton chose to disseminate this information was bad. In saying this in the ME, he has essentially told the terrorists, that the leaders of the US are not behind the war. They don't understand the nuances of american politics, and tend to believe what is told to them verbatim. To say this in America, or to the DNC would have been much smarter. The terrorists now think that there actions are working, and they should increase their activities. Poor Choice Bill, Poor Choice.

let's not forget that before bush's current vanity war, saddam was making back-channel overtures to the US to step down, leave iraq and go to egypt(?). offers that the Bush admin just ignored.

I'm watching Tucker Carlson now on MSNBC, as I couldn't take any more research tonight, and he was just blasting Clinton for remarks made in the ME, Essentially Clinton said that he was FOR the removal of Saddam, but AGAINST the war. Now, I'm too tired to look up his exact remarks, but this is the sort of thing that drives me nuts about the libs...Make up your friggin mind, if you're against it, you're against it, playing this middle ground thing is what irritates so many American voters and turns them off. Anyway...just a little fodder for the libbies to chew on..

I clipped this out of today's San Jose Mercury News. Chew on this.

ASSERTION: Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, told reporters last Thursday that the Clinton administration and Congress perceived Saddam as a threat based on some of the same intelligence used by the Bush administration.

"Congress, in 1998 authorized, in fact, the use of force based on that intelligence," Hadley said.

And Rumsfeld, in briefing reporters Tuesday, seemed to link President Clinton's signing of the act to his decision to order four days of U.S. bombing of suspected weapons sites and military facilities in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.

CONTEXT: Congress did pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated U.S. support for regime change in Iraq and provided up to $97 million in overt military and humanitarian aid to opposition groups in Iraq.

But it didn't authorize the use of U.S. force against Iraq.

Clinton said his bombing order was based on Iraq's refusal to comply with weapons inspections, a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

I clipped this out of today's San Jose Mercury News. Chew on this.

ASSERTION: Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, told reporters last Thursday that the Clinton administration and Congress perceived Saddam as a threat based on some of the same intelligence used by the Bush administration.

"Congress, in 1998 authorized, in fact, the use of force based on that intelligence," Hadley said.

And Rumsfeld, in briefing reporters Tuesday, seemed to link President Clinton's signing of the act to his decision to order four days of U.S. bombing of suspected weapons sites and military facilities in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.

CONTEXT: Congress did pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated U.S. support for regime change in Iraq and provided up to $97 million in overt military and humanitarian aid to opposition groups in Iraq.

But it didn't authorize the use of U.S. force against Iraq.

Clinton said his bombing order was based on Iraq's refusal to comply with weapons inspections, a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Most people would qualify bombing a country for 4 days as an act of war, and therein lies the hypocrisy. One more thing Rumsfeld is a moron, that man should have been removed from his post many years ago..I am not defending him. As far as the 1998 ILA, well, nice to see it was working so well. I remember reading about the Iraq Liberation Act, and at the time I was glad/happy to see our government try to deal with Saddam in non-military means, however, it wasn't working. I'm not defending Bush or Rumsfeld, I am merely stating that a man who bombed this same country for 4 days, is now statind that he is against the war....it just seems two-faced..that's all.

I'm watching Tucker Carlson now on MSNBC, as I couldn't take any more research tonight, and he was just blasting Clinton for remarks made in the ME, Essentially Clinton said that he was FOR the removal of Saddam, but AGAINST the war. Now, I'm too tired to look up his exact remarks, but this is the sort of thing that drives me nuts about the libs...Make up your friggin mind, if you're against it, you're against it, playing this middle ground thing is what irritates so many American voters and turns them off. Anyway...just a little fodder for the libbies to chew on..
you have to admit that a team of CIA assassins sent covertly to depose Saddam would have been a hell of a lot quicker and cheaper than a full scale war.

Most people would qualify bombing a country for 4 days as an act of war, and therein lies the hypocrisy. One more thing Rumsfeld is a moron, that man should have been removed from his post many years ago..I am not defending him. As far as the 1998 ILA, well, nice to see it was working so well. I remember reading about the Iraq Liberation Act, and at the time I was glad/happy to see our government try to deal with Saddam in non-military means, however, it wasn't working. I'm not defending Bush or Rumsfeld, I am merely stating that a man who bombed this same country for 4 days, is now statind that he is against the war....it just seems two-faced..that's all.


Here's where prominent Lefties were on the subject of Iraq prior to the war:



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
PresidentClinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"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 . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"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."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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. 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

-- RC

A) because he got caught'
B) because he funded it by covertly selling weapons to our ENEMY the Iranians and GOT CAUGHT

so that's a double whammy, and agreed with TMB. we've toppled oodles of leaders without military intervention. Heck the Cons toppled our Govenor without a shot fired

A) because he got caught'
B) because he funded it by covertly selling weapons to our ENEMY the Iranians and GOT CAUGHT

so that's a double whammy, and agreed with TMB. we've toppled oodles of leaders without military intervention. Heck the Cons toppled our Govenor without a shot fired

...Governor toppled himself.

--RC

Right back at ya!

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Cheney and ferc won't release their minutes. why the overcharging and price fixing by W and Cheney's buddies at Enron and such is kept so hush hush. That the CA PUC has to subpoena to get the notes and are denied because of "NationalSecurity"
sorry, first State bloodless coup in American History, then they tried to Delay-ize our state but the darn voters in this state are just a bit too keen. Stupid democracy, a dictatorship would be easier, especially if I was the dictator,uh heh huh

Right back at ya!

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


...proves my point. The above leaders you cite all continue to support the war. The Libs I included in my collection all now oppose the war.

--RC

Dems who voted yes supported a process that gave the President the right to authorize force. GWB pulled the trigger.

Too bad the Repubs didn't apply some of their sage opinions to their approach to the Iraq war.

Dems who voted yes supported a process that gave the President the right to authorize force. GWB pulled the trigger.

... now those Dems are backpedaling. How courageous.

--RC

Some people admit when they're wrong. Others plow ahead and say who cares?

and always back your original decisions.

it is a real bad thing when your decisions are sh!te

Some people admit when they're wrong. Others plow ahead and say who cares?

...apologies. I forgot: Bush is always wrong.

--RC

you have to admit that a team of CIA assassins sent covertly to depose Saddam would have been a hell of a lot quicker and cheaper than a full scale war.

BJ, I do, and if that would have been feasible, it would have happened, it's not that easy. When I was in Desert Storm, let's just say, without getting into specifics, which I can't, it was tried....I can't elaborate, I'm sorry. It failed, obviously. I am not an ardent supporter of Bush, and I think Rumsfeld has done more to hurt us within the international community than almost any other person. I actually like Clinton, and I thought that besides some moral ambiguity, he was a good president. I just think his remarks were hypocritical, and ill-advised.

He does have a tendency to mess things up. I think he misunderstands the Texas slogan.

...proves my point. The above leaders you cite all continue to support the war. The Libs I included in my collection all now oppose the war.

--RC

I think the point was though, that when Clinton decided to commit troops and resources and military might to Kosovo, the Republicans didn't back him at all, which is where those quotes come from.

Now they're all about supporting the war in Iraq?? Hypocrites yet again.

I think the point was though, that when Clinton decided to commit troops and resources and military might to Kosovo, the Republicans didn't back him at all, which is where those quotes come from.

Now they're all about supporting the war in Iraq?? Hypocrites yet again.

How did you feel about Clinton and Kosovo?

pretty low losses on our part and tossed out a ruthless dictator. all while taking anti war flack from the right, but back then slagging the C.I.C. didn'tmean you hated the troops and America. Love how definitioons change to suit them doncha?

Dems who voted yes supported a process that gave the President the right to authorize force. GWB pulled the trigger.

Too bad the Repubs didn't apply some of their sage opinions to their approach to the Iraq war.
The legisaltive authority and the money to use force, but don't you dare use it.

What kind of twisted logic is that?

pretty low losses on our part and tossed out a ruthless dictator. all while taking anti war flack from the right, but back then slagging the C.I.C. didn'tmean you hated the troops and America. Love how definitioons change to suit them doncha?

There was the credible question of how that problem was detrimental to our interests. How was it? Why did we finally send military assets there?

you know NeoCons hate sending troops over to just stop Genocide (see Rwanda, etc...) without a little sumthin' in it for them. freakin' typical. yeah their big gripe was people were dying under a ruthless regime but no oil, no major plus column.

you know NeoCons hate sending troops over to just stop Genocide (see Rwanda, etc...) without a little sumthin' in it for them. freakin' typical. yeah their big gripe was people were dying under a ruthless regime but no oil, no major plus column.

How many troops did Clinton send to Rawanda? How many did he request? What was our purpose in Kosovo again?

as was mentioned, the UN had been working in that direction. a little more time, a few changes in procedure, maybe a little arm-twisting in iraq and among his neghbors, and who knows?

other than that, there's always the black ops, poisn in the drink, bullet to the head, support to an iraqi rebellion, etc.

there's a million things we could have done, short of going to war. how did we get the soviet union to fail without firing a shot? you guys just have a shortsighted fixation on military power. good little neo-cons.
That was working real well. Remember all the "children" who starved under sanctions, while millions of dollars were being siphoned off the oil for food program by UN officials? A little more time, a few changes in procedure, and Saddam would have perfected his operations.

As to the assassination of a leader of a nation, I think that outside of a Tom Clancy novel, somewhere buried deep down in the laws of the nation, ITS ILLEGAL TO DO THAT! Imagine the cry that would have arisen from the left if those "black ops" folks had put a .50 caliber bullet through Saddam's head at 1500 yards.

It's unbelieveable that you would even suggest that. On second thought, no its not.

which sux all sides around but typically american. exactly why the Hutu's didn't react to our threats. They have (had) nothing we wanted.
Oh how many casualties,how much money and how long did it take to end the serbo/croat/bosnian muslim conflict?
oh and ya know what's really funny, the residents actually did appreciate us being there.

which sux all sides around but typically american. exactly why the Hutu's didn't react to our threats. They have (had) nothing we wanted.
Oh how many casualties,how much money and how long did it take to end the serbo/croat/bosnian muslim conflict?
oh and ya know what's really funny, the residents actually did appreciate us being there.

Well, we talked tough to those bad guys in Rawanda and the Un, well, those guys were absolutely livid. Same in Bosnia and Kosovo. I remember a lot of hand wringing and threats going round and a lot of European governments (their responsibility really) waiting for the US to DO something. Clinton says, with one of those patented lip bites and sighs, that Rawanda was his biggest failure. He doesn't really mean it though. Thing is, we did those things by the Democrats wonderful diplomatic route. When Bill finally did take some action in Kosovo and bosnia, the genocide had already claimed thousands of lives. The people we rescued would have been even more grateful if we haed done so in a more timely manner. Bill should include that one in his sad reflections. Still, what justification did you see for us actually sending military personel in harms way there? What was our purpose that you found worth the sacrifice? What was the announced exit strategy and deadline? Was the deadline met? did you get incensed ?

it's also illegal to invade a sovereign nation militarily. that doesn't seem to bother you.

That was working real well. Remember all the "children" who starved under sanctions, while millions of dollars were being siphoned off the oil for food program by UN officials? A little more time, a few changes in procedure, and Saddam would have perfected his operations.

As to the assassination of a leader of a nation, I think that outside of a Tom Clancy novel, somewhere buried deep down in the laws of the nation, ITS ILLEGAL TO DO THAT! Imagine the cry that would have arisen from the left if those "black ops" folks had put a .50 caliber bullet through Saddam's head at 1500 yards.

It's unbelieveable that you would even suggest that. On second thought, no its not.


why do you align yourself with a brutal dictator? :confused:

somewhere buried deep down in the laws of the nation, ITS ILLEGAL TO DO THAT!
Last I knew it wasn't (I'm not condoning the notion BTW). There have been a few Presidential orders to that effect-but those can be set aside-and ignored.

Try again MM.

As to the assassination of a leader of a nation, I think that outside of a Tom Clancy novel, somewhere buried deep down in the laws of the nation, ITS ILLEGAL TO DO THAT! Imagine the cry that would have arisen from the left if those "black ops" folks had put a .50 caliber bullet through Saddam's head at 1500 yards.

It's unbelieveable that you would even suggest that. On second thought, no its not.

Yea, some spineless unelected republican president signed that one into law. :eek:



D-DAY 11 SEPTEMBER

H-HOUR 0600

Chile's coup d'etat was close to perfect. Unfortunately, "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. .Â*.Â*. Original plan called for President Allende to be held incommunicado in his home until the coup was a fait accompli. H-hour delay in Santiago permitted Allende to be alerted at 0730. Allende immediately dashed to the palace .Â*.Â*. [where] he had access to radio communications facilities which permitted him to personally implore "workers and students, come to the Moneda and defend your Government against the Armed Forces." The hour was 0830.

.Â*.Â*. Military had all roads to Santiago blocked. Lid was on TIGHT inside city. Everyone on streets not wearing right color jersey stood an excellent chance of getting shot. Allende managed to personally broadcast two "MAYDAY" messages. The first, at 0830, sounded strong and confident as he summoned the workers and students. The second at 0945 sounded morose, almost as if he was preparing the eulogy for his dying government. It was his last broadcast as the Air Force soon located and rocketed his antennae. The hour was 1015. .Â*.Â*.

Allende was found alone and dead in his office off the inner courtyard. He had killed himself by placing a sub-machine gun under his chin and pulling the trigger. Messy, but efficient. The gun was lying near his body. A gold metal plate imbedded in the stock was inscribed "To my good friend Salvador Allende from Fidel Castro." Obviously Communist Cuba had sent one too many guns to Chile for their own good. The hour was 1345. .Â*.Â*.

Semper Fidelis

Patrick J. Ryan

Lieutenant Colonel, USMC Â*Â*

As Kissinger said later..."We set the limits on diversity."

Well, we talked tough to those bad guys in Rawanda and the Un, well, those guys were absolutely livid. Same in Bosnia and Kosovo. I remember a lot of hand wringing and threats going round and a lot of European governments (their responsibility really) waiting for the US to DO something. Clinton says, with one of those patented lip bites and sighs, that Rawanda was his biggest failure. He doesn't really mean it though. Thing is, we did those things by the Democrats wonderful diplomatic route. When Bill finally did take some action in Kosovo and bosnia, the genocide had already claimed thousands of lives. The people we rescued would have been even more grateful if we haed done so in a more timely manner. Bill should include that one in his sad reflections. Still, what justification did you see for us actually sending military personel in harms way there? What was our purpose that you found worth the sacrifice? What was the announced exit strategy and deadline? Was the deadline met? did you get incensed ?

Let's see... Kosovo we didn't invade pre-emptively. We were there for 77 days in total. Total US deaths in Kosovo? 2. While I do believe he acted too late to avoid a lot of the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing, we did go in there with a purpose, a clear purpose. We achieved that purpose and we left. What justification did you see in sending hundreds of thousands of men and women into battle in Iraq? I think the humanitarian mission that we achieved, and were asked to do in Kosovo was a lot more justified than Iraq ever will be. We weren't asked to be in Iraq. We invaded a sovereign nation illegally some might argue. I hope that Bush doesn't travel outside of the US after he leaves office, as he might see the inside of the Hague. Then again, considering how much he traveled outside the US before I don't think he'll have to worry about that. So for the sacrifice of 2 American soldiers in Kosovo, you have a grateful nation, and you have another ruthless dictator and killer deposed, and facing trial in an internation court of law. I would say, that in this case, yes it was justified. And there were no battle deaths remember in Kosovo, these came from an accident.

KOSOVO
1999
DURATION IN DAYS: 77
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 7,000
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 0
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 2

So how is Iraq better? Why do you sound so bitter about Kosovo but yet you support Iraq wholeheartedly? Why the double standard there? Kosovo was not a war for us. It was not a preemptive invasion. It was nothing like Iraq, not even close. I guess because we were doing something good, and improving a section of the world you thought that not worthwhile? While in Iraq we've completely destroyed the country, and generally made a huge mess out of the place. Your indignation about Kosovo doesn't ring true with me. Sorry.

Let's see... Kosovo we didn't invade pre-emptively. We were there for 77 days in total. Total US deaths in Kosovo? 2. While I do believe he acted too late to avoid a lot of the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing, we did go in there with a purpose, a clear purpose. We achieved that purpose and we left. What justification did you see in sending hundreds of thousands of men and women into battle in Iraq? I think the humanitarian mission that we achieved, and were asked to do in Kosovo was a lot more justified than Iraq ever will be. We weren't asked to be in Iraq. We invaded a sovereign nation illegally some might argue. I hope that Bush doesn't travel outside of the US after he leaves office, as he might see the inside of the Hague. Then again, considering how much he traveled outside the US before I don't think he'll have to worry about that. So for the sacrifice of 2 American soldiers in Kosovo, you have a grateful nation, and you have another ruthless dictator and killer deposed, and facing trial in an internation court of law. I would say, that in this case, yes it was justified. And there were no battle deaths remember in Kosovo, these came from an accident.

KOSOVO
1999
DURATION IN DAYS: 77
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 7,000
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 0
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 2

So how is Iraq better? Why do you sound so bitter about Kosovo but yet you support Iraq wholeheartedly? Why the double standard there? Kosovo was not a war for us. It was not a preemptive invasion. It was nothing like Iraq, not even close. I guess because we were doing something good, and improving a section of the world you thought that not worthwhile? While in Iraq we've completely destroyed the country, and generally made a huge mess out of the place. Your indignation about Kosovo doesn't ring true with me. Sorry.

I'm not bitter about Kosovo, it's a question of motive. What was our motive, why did we go there? Did you approve? What did we accomplish? I know you already told me but it might be worth reviewing relative to what we have accomplished so far in Iraq. What I see here is a clear situation where we took action to depose a tyrant, grateful people, (There are a lot of those scattered around Iraq, some with a blue finger) but we sat on our asses like the rest of the world until thousands had been murdered while we tried to decide who should step up. Bill did good, he was just late to the party. George has done good but the party is bigger and it ain't over yet. I'm an American and I'm sick of the partisan politics from both sides. We're doing the right thing here and there was nothing wrong with our reasons for doing it. Nothing about this fight was ever going to be easy but it is going to be over one day. The only question now is what will we see at the end, a proper finish or will we settle.

Define a "proper finish."

Define a "proper finish."

One that reaches our goals.

One that reaches our goals.
And exactly what are they? They've been changin more frequently than the weather in upstate NY.

WMD-never existed oooops

S.Hussein et a-dead, or captured or other wise dethroned, so now their lawyers are getting assassinated

You still can't safelydrive the 2 or so miles to the airport from the Green Zone...how many years after the invasion

Any Iraqi who has shoved their index finger into an octopus is now a target on the range

The thing is, they don't hide those fingers in their pockets.
Would have been worth more if they had wrapped those fingers around a bat or curled the index finger into the trigger of a gun and shot the bad guys first.

And exactly what are they? They've been changin more frequently than the weather in upstate NY.

WMD-never existed oooops

S.Hussein et a-dead, or captured or other wise dethroned, so now their lawyers are getting assassinated

You still can't safelydrive the 2 or so miles to the airport from the Green Zone...how many years after the invasion

Any Iraqi who has shoved their index finger into an octopus is now a target on the range

The thing is, they don't hide those fingers in their pockets.

I'm not bitter about Kosovo, it's a question of motive. What was our motive, why did we go there? Did you approve? What did we accomplish? I know you already told me but it might be worth reviewing relative to what we have accomplished so far in Iraq. What I see here is a clear situation where we took action to depose a tyrant, grateful people, (There are a lot of those scattered around Iraq, some with a blue finger) but we sat on our asses like the rest of the world until thousands had been murdered while we tried to decide who should step up. Bill did good, he was just late to the party. George has done good but the party is bigger and it ain't over yet. I'm an American and I'm sick of the partisan politics from both sides. We're doing the right thing here and there was nothing wrong with our reasons for doing it. Nothing about this fight was ever going to be easy but it is going to be over one day. The only question now is what will we see at the end, a proper finish or will we settle.

I guess motive for me was more or less the people of that country crying out for us to come in there and help them. Iraq, this wasn't happening so much, or at all. We were not welcomed into their country like the liberators we thought that we would be. They saw it as an invasion and occupation instead of a liberation, and I'm certain that's how a lot of them still feel about it (ie insurgency going strong).

What good has come out of Iraq? Bush has said time and again that invading Iraq was a key to the war on terror. How was that helped our war on terror? Ever since we invaded Iraq terrorist acts around the world are on the rise and have been every year since we invaded in 2003. Actually, they've been on the rise since 2001, and have increased substantially every year since then. Winning the war on terror are we? Not in Iraq we're not because before we invaded there wasn't an outward support of terrorism in the country, and now that we're there, it is flourishing within the country itself, and it has turned Iraq into one terrorist training ground where they can actually shoot at American soldiers, and kill innocent civilians by the dozens on a daily basis. I don't know about you, but before we invaded Iraq, there weren't car bombs going off multiple times a day within the city limits of Baghdad or other cities within Iraq.

Let's look at the "threat" of Saddam Hussein. He was no threat to the security of the US. He was pinned down in his own country. Every time he twitched a moustache hair, we shot something down, lobbed a few cruise missiles into the country, and basically, he and his regime were kept men. They proved no outward threat to the US. Was Saddam a bad guy? Hell yes he was, but there are worse in the world, and we aren't invading those countries (see China, N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other oppressive regimes in the world). Saddam was a contained threat, meaning, he posed no threat to the United States as a whole. He had no ties to global terrorism.

George has not "done good" in this situation. There are a lot of other situations where he has not "done good" either, or his party has not done good since he's been in office. Iraq is just the most glaring evidence of the malfeasance foisted upon the US by the Bush administration. 2000+ dead soldiers. Estimated 35000-40000 dead Iraqi civilians. 15000+ wounded American soldiers. 200 billion in cost. So how has he done good again? I forget.. For the record, I have been dead set against this war from the start. I sent multiple letters to the White House in the days and months before the war started letting my opinion be known, and also wrote my Congressmen as well. I think that the weapons inspections should have been given more time to make a better determination (even if it took another 10 years, the cost in lives and capital would have been immensely less than what we've spent now), and we should have actually tried using diplomacy with Iraq which is something that we didn't even attempt to do with Iraq. We just had Prez Bush putting the fear of WMDs into American's hearts and minds, and using it as justification to invade Iraq. Like or not, we were all sold this war on a bill of goods that kept repeating WMDs, WMDs, he has WMDs and he's going to give them to terrorists. It was a misleading of the American public, no matter what the intelligence said. We went in there, and lo and behold, NO WMDs, so they change the story. And then change it again, and then change it again. In general the American public is becoming wise to this now, and they are taking a stand against it, and letting their opinions be known. Forgive me for being maybe un-wise about this, but doesn't the President work for us? Shouldn't he be listening to his constituency? Meaning the entire population of the US... And right now, he isn't listening. He's just taking the same stand and not moving from it. This is his biggest downfall as a so-called "leader". Taking a firm stand on something is fine, but I would view it a lot more favorably if he could admit mistakes and misdeeds, and then change direction. It's not weakness, that's intelligence, something he seems to have little of. Maybe he should start paying attention to the polling numbers, because whatever he's doing, isn't working on Iraq. And since now all of the attention is on Iraq, nothing else much is getting done either. Let's face it, W is a flop as a President, the facts prove this out.

I guess motive for me was more or less the people of that country crying out for us to come in there and help them. Iraq, this wasn't happening so much, or at all. We were not welcomed into their country like the liberators we thought that we would be. They saw it as an invasion and occupation instead of a liberation, and I'm certain that's how a lot of them still feel about it (ie insurgency going strong).

clearly stopping ethnic cleansing isn't enough for Snake. Silly ole Billary trying to be a humanitarian. 77 days, 2 dead , the killing stopped, those responsible brought to justice, a big Thank You America from the world and another feather in our "America: Defender of truth, Freedom and Justice' cap. what a frickin failure