speaker said:
Discussion, concern, and even bombing are one thing. An invasion of 150,000 troops is a whole different level.
speaker said:
Number of troops in Iraq when Clinton left office: 0. Number of US troops in Iraq when Bush was in office: 150,000. But remember folks, it's all Clinton's fault.
speaker said:
The zealots in question were served a warrant. They responded by shooting and killing four law enforcement officers. After a full two months-two months!-of negotiations, etc,. finally the building was attacked.
If you killed four policemen and were cornered, would you expect the cops to hold off for two months while everybody has a nice chat? Yes, the cops blundered badly in the way it ended. But this matter started when four cops were killed doing their legal duty serving an arrest warrant. And the compound and the police exchanged gunfire intermittently through the whole thing.
speaker said:
He allowed the sale of satellite guidance technology. Satellites are all around us, and many countries use them for commercial purposes. Suddenly the right wing jumps up and yells that the technology might be adaptable for military systems. From there, I have heard everyone on the net talking about "missile launch" technology, (whatever happened to satellites), and even seen people try to tell me that Clinton shipped whole missiles, complete with warheads, over to China with the gyroscopes set for the USA. Ready made.
I wonder how many satellites there are in the sky right now, sent up by how many countries and private enterprises.
Look. No president is totaly altruistic. No president is unaffected by the decisions of his predecessor. But Bush seems to be setting some sort of record when his decisions turn out badly.
High unemployment? Clinton's fault-he left office just as the economy was going to collapse.
September 11? Clinton's fault. He should have arrested bin Laden years ago. And he should have left Bush better intel in place.
Invasion of Iraq? Clinton's fault. He started the process.
No WMD's in Iraq? Clinton's fault. He thought they were in there too. So when Bush sticks 150,000 troops in there to protect us from something that doesn't exist, don't blame him.
Record deficits? Clinton's fault. Bush had to finance the invasion of Iraq to protect the world from Saddam's non-existent WMD's. That costs big money. But Clinton thought they were in there too, so that makes it mostly Clinton's fault.
And on and on....
PS: Oh, I just had to add this one.
The Mission Accomplished banner that hung behind Bush while he made his speech on the aircraft carrier to declare the fighting in Iraq largely over? That wasn't Clinton's fault. According to Bush, that was the sailors' fault, it was their idea. Okay, maybe somebody in Bush's administration did sort of give the go-ahead, but it was the sailors' idea first. Was too. Was too. So don't blame Bush.
The Mission Accomplished banner that hung behind Bush while he made his speech on the aircraft carrier to declare the fighting in Iraq largely over? That wasn't Clinton's fault. According to Bush, that was the sailors' fault, it was their idea. Okay, maybe somebody in Bush's administration did sort of give the go-ahead, but it was the sailors' idea first. Was too. Was too. So don't blame Bush.
All along since this thread started there has been a lot of
discussion and speculations about the real reason for going
into Iraq. Did Bush and others truly believe there were WMDs
or was it for the oil, or to get rid of Saddam or...?
There has been some interesting interviews with Hans Blix
on swedish television recently, and I suppose similar interviews
might have been shown elsewhere since he seems to be touring
the world to talk about his book on this topic. Anyway, in the
first of these interviews he said that he had talked to Blair
shortly before the war started. Blix had asked Blair if it he wouldn't
find it embarassing to go in with hundreds of thousands of troops
and then find out that there were no WMDs. Blair had answered
very confidently that there was no risk of that happening, because
"Iraq has WMDs. Our intelligence says they have them, the US
intelligence says the have them , everybody even the Egyptian
intelligene says they have them, so there is no risk that will
happen". Blix conluded that Blair obviously was truly convinced
of the WMD theory.
In the second interview, this morning, Blix said that when
he started the inspections he himself also believed Iraq had
WMDs, but as time went by he became more and more convinced
that there actually weren't any. The inspectors got a lot of
information from the US intelligence about where to look for
WMDs, but wherever they went, no trace of any WMDs could
be found. So how come the US intelligence was so convinced?
Blix said that his inspection team, as we already know, could
choose to interview whoever they wanted to and they had
the possibility of even flying people out of Iraq together with
their families for inteviews if they needed to. Yet, they couldn't
find a single person who knew anything about any WMDs. The
US intelligence, on the other hand, relied mainly on information
from defectors, and this was the major mistake according to
Blix. He meant that many of the defectors had an interest in
lying since they wanted to fool the US into a war with Iraq
to get rid of Saddam, but they knew the US wouldn't go to
war just for that reason.
We cannot know for sure what the truth is, but this theory
suggests that maybe it wasn't even a planned coordinated
plot by anybody, but just a number of exile Iraqis having
the same idea of how to try fooling the US to go for Saddam,
and the US intelligence fell into the trap, and then Bush, Blair
and a lot of others fell into the trap too.
discussion and speculations about the real reason for going
into Iraq. Did Bush and others truly believe there were WMDs
or was it for the oil, or to get rid of Saddam or...?
There has been some interesting interviews with Hans Blix
on swedish television recently, and I suppose similar interviews
might have been shown elsewhere since he seems to be touring
the world to talk about his book on this topic. Anyway, in the
first of these interviews he said that he had talked to Blair
shortly before the war started. Blix had asked Blair if it he wouldn't
find it embarassing to go in with hundreds of thousands of troops
and then find out that there were no WMDs. Blair had answered
very confidently that there was no risk of that happening, because
"Iraq has WMDs. Our intelligence says they have them, the US
intelligence says the have them , everybody even the Egyptian
intelligene says they have them, so there is no risk that will
happen". Blix conluded that Blair obviously was truly convinced
of the WMD theory.
In the second interview, this morning, Blix said that when
he started the inspections he himself also believed Iraq had
WMDs, but as time went by he became more and more convinced
that there actually weren't any. The inspectors got a lot of
information from the US intelligence about where to look for
WMDs, but wherever they went, no trace of any WMDs could
be found. So how come the US intelligence was so convinced?
Blix said that his inspection team, as we already know, could
choose to interview whoever they wanted to and they had
the possibility of even flying people out of Iraq together with
their families for inteviews if they needed to. Yet, they couldn't
find a single person who knew anything about any WMDs. The
US intelligence, on the other hand, relied mainly on information
from defectors, and this was the major mistake according to
Blix. He meant that many of the defectors had an interest in
lying since they wanted to fool the US into a war with Iraq
to get rid of Saddam, but they knew the US wouldn't go to
war just for that reason.
We cannot know for sure what the truth is, but this theory
suggests that maybe it wasn't even a planned coordinated
plot by anybody, but just a number of exile Iraqis having
the same idea of how to try fooling the US to go for Saddam,
and the US intelligence fell into the trap, and then Bush, Blair
and a lot of others fell into the trap too.
kelticwizard said:
You missed my intent here. This was not a pile on Clinton post but your reply says that'ts how you took it. My point was, the issue is not something new. You are correct though, it is absolutely with Bush, that troops were put on the ground in Iraq.
There was a relentless build-up to Gulf War 2 that never really subsided after Gulf War 1. Had Gore been in the Oval Office, I have no doubt that he would have done the same thing, albeit with more UN troop involvement. He spoke on that exact topic many times during his campaign. Further, he cited the exact reasons Bush did.
As far as giving away info to improve launch reliability goes, here is my understanding of this issue: The satellite companies formed a peer review board and the Chinese scientists would come to them with their findings on why their missiles were blowing up shortly after launch. The review board would say "No" if incorrect and the Chinese would retire until they had another conclusion to present. Eventually this process led to fixing their poor assembly routines and launch reliability improved dramatically. In 1/02, without admitting wrongdoing, Loral settled the case for $20 million. Is this an incorrect understanding of the facts IYO?
speaker
Speaker:
By the tone of your post, I judged that you are a fair minded person trying to be just to both sides. It is only that by constant repetition, a lot of stuff was put on Clinton that I think he didn't deserve, and that even fair minded people like yourself have come to regard these things as black marks against him.
I think Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. I doubt that Gore would have gone into Iraq, at least not the way Bush did. Remember, Bush ordered inspectors out of Iraq before he sent troops in. It is one thing to invade when the country says, "No inspectors", in contravention of the treaty. It is another to order the inspectors out because you decided to invade anyway. The whole justification was to enforce the treaty after the first Gulf War. If the inspectors are put back in, it is hard to understand the justification for an invasion.
Don't forget one important difference. Because the UN supported the first Gulf War, the USA ended paying only 22% of the cost. Because we and England decided to "go it alone", the USA and the UK are footing the bill for this together with not too much from other sources. It's contributed to record deficits in our economy-I can just imagine what it's done to theirs.
As for Loral and the satellite technology-I will check that out again, it's been quite a few years now. My understanding is that the tech is used for satellite communication, not necessarily military. But I will check it out again and get back to you.
By the tone of your post, I judged that you are a fair minded person trying to be just to both sides. It is only that by constant repetition, a lot of stuff was put on Clinton that I think he didn't deserve, and that even fair minded people like yourself have come to regard these things as black marks against him.
I think Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. I doubt that Gore would have gone into Iraq, at least not the way Bush did. Remember, Bush ordered inspectors out of Iraq before he sent troops in. It is one thing to invade when the country says, "No inspectors", in contravention of the treaty. It is another to order the inspectors out because you decided to invade anyway. The whole justification was to enforce the treaty after the first Gulf War. If the inspectors are put back in, it is hard to understand the justification for an invasion.
Don't forget one important difference. Because the UN supported the first Gulf War, the USA ended paying only 22% of the cost. Because we and England decided to "go it alone", the USA and the UK are footing the bill for this together with not too much from other sources. It's contributed to record deficits in our economy-I can just imagine what it's done to theirs.
As for Loral and the satellite technology-I will check that out again, it's been quite a few years now. My understanding is that the tech is used for satellite communication, not necessarily military. But I will check it out again and get back to you.
Re: me got good spilling
Well, according to you a few posts ago, Americans were all mindless idiots united under Bush and bent to destroy the world. Now, you hope we never lose our voice? Which one is it?
B.VDBOS said:
Well, according to you a few posts ago, Americans were all mindless idiots united under Bush and bent to destroy the world. Now, you hope we never lose our voice? Which one is it?
so the problem is the us paying for it instead of the un? that doesn't matter much since over 50% of the funding for that useless organiztion comes from the us
I believe you have that wrong. The US share to the UN is approximately 22% of the UN budget.
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2001/2853.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/EM782.cfm
It appears on these missions the nations themselves foot most of the bill.
2002's total bill to the UN was just under $900 million for peacekeeping operations and just under $900 million aid to international organizations.
That comes to just under 1.8 billion. We just authorized $87 billion for Iraq. Quite a difference.
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2001/2853.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/EM782.cfm
It appears on these missions the nations themselves foot most of the bill.
2002's total bill to the UN was just under $900 million for peacekeeping operations and just under $900 million aid to international organizations.
That comes to just under 1.8 billion. We just authorized $87 billion for Iraq. Quite a difference.
As far as your opinion of the UN being useless, I would suggest that you read some novels or political books written about the post WWII or early Cold War period. If you do, you will not be able to escape one conclusion-that the people of the time felt that nuclear war between the US and USSR was inevitable. It was only a case of when.
Well, we got past that time without that war happening, and while I will not say the UN was the only reason, the fact is that I would hate to turn the clock back and take my chances without it.
I really think it was a miracle there was no nuclear war, as you read accounts of the time.
Well, we got past that time without that war happening, and while I will not say the UN was the only reason, the fact is that I would hate to turn the clock back and take my chances without it.
I really think it was a miracle there was no nuclear war, as you read accounts of the time.
kelticwizard said:
and it is precisely that "perception" that detered us from an all-out nuclear war.
It sounds weird but makes a lot of sense. Any imbalance of power betweent he USSR and the US would have caused the use of nuclear weapons because the offender would be confident that it would not suffer from heavy losses because of the power imbalance.
However, if both realized that the other party could hit him as hard, he would have to think twice before initiating any offensive.
This is a clear case where WMD saves life.
Of course, this whole thing would be very easy to understand if you are into game theory.
millwood said:
I agree to a large extent - it was the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). It can work for nations that have reason to fear death.
In dealing with religious-based terrorists, though, it doesn't work. If they let lose a dirty bomb in NYC, Washington DC and Los Angeles some day, what can we do? Who will we nuke back in return? What terrorist, in fact, fears our nuclear bombs? As Bush said, the rules have changed, and the rules do not favor civilized nations.
I doubt that any of those third world pi$$ ant uneducated peasants can even concieve what a nuclear weapon could do to them. I doubt that they even know where Heroshima is.
oops My bad. Had I been watching the screen and not my hands, I would have noticed the misspelling.
Brian Donaldson said:
Is an uneducated peasant less of a human being than a suburban American?
That certainly seems to be the sentiment conveyed by your posts!
in germany a man doing statement like stat would be called a racist, probably a fascist. If done in public it would get im in trouble. Not so in the US....
We know whats the country in war with iraq, but about 80% of people there were not able to point iraq on a map if asked.
till said:
I suppose you have some hard data to back that up, or it is just off the thin air?
It was published over one year ago by some newspapers here. As you are not the one who reads the hard information behind the links i allready provided, but instead change topic or show up with another childish hokuspokus or bushistic liestory, i will not spend the time to find it for you. go, search yourself www.metager.de is your friend.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.