No, Clinton didn't send in troops, but Clinton's administration also thought that Iraq had WMD.
The point is: Maybe Bush's information was wrong. Iraq most likely didn't have any WMDs, but it's not like Bush was the only one who thought they did. It's not like he "lied" which is the common phrase spoken.
And of course they weren't invaded because of WMDs. Of course they were invaded because we needed to "get" somebody for 9/11. It's obvious. But it's not like Iraq was some peace loving country, and that the world (and Iraq) isn't a better place without him in power
they never showed evidence of WMD, and the dog and pony show that Powell performed was a complete joke.
how is it that most people never believed that Iraq had WMD but the CIA, Clinton, Russia, and the UK did?
Galt Wrote:No, Clinton didn't send in troops, but Clinton's administration also thought that Iraq had WMD.
The point is: Maybe Bush's information was wrong. Iraq most likely didn't have any WMDs, but it's not like Bush was the only one who thought they did. It's not like he "lied" which is the common phrase spoken.
And of course they weren't invaded because of WMDs. Of course they were invaded because we needed to "get" somebody for 9/11. It's obvious. But it's not like Iraq was some peace loving country, and that the world (and Iraq) isn't a better place without him in power
in other words...whether he believed or was told, he did not commit troops to the task..therefore you including Clinton is irrelevent. Point is...Bush admin sent troops in on this information...therefore, action was taken. Therefore: Bush and his admin are morons. Clinton is a genius.
If we are going strictly by the definition
Lie
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
while the first definition is debatable the second one is not
Bush didn't create the misleading impression. The CIA was wrong. Russian Intelligence was wrong. British intelligence was wrong.
Clinton not deploying troops was "brilliant"? Clinton didn't DO anything with regard to deploying troops during his term (as Iraq ignored the UN for a decade and al Queda planned their attack on the US -- for YEARS before GW was ever in office). Since Clinton didn't take any actions, there aren't any direct ramifications.
Had he taken action, maybe 9/11 never would have happened. Maybe the fact that our actions have captured hundreds of al-Queda and removed Sadam have prevented future attacks on the US or the Iraqi people that would have happened if Bush hadn't ordered the troops. It's foolish to speculate, and I'm not saying that any of that is true, but the point is that you can't say that Clinton is great because he did nothing, and Bush killed 1000 americans because he used the military.
There are no explicit ramifications from inaction.
Quote:Bush didn't create the misleading impression. The CIA was wrong. Russian Intelligence was wrong. British intelligence was wrong.
and yet he somehow managed to get half the country believing that saddam was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Quote: Of course they were invaded because we needed to "get" somebody for 9/11. It's obvious. But it's not like Iraq was some peace loving country, and that the world (and Iraq) isn't a better place without him in power
if you truly believe that this is good justification then you are one messed up little fucker.
this "feel good cause we got someone" war pulled massive resources from getting the group actually responsible for 9/11. bush didnt send troops into the area where we knew osama was until 2 weeks later.
for you to say that the invasion was justified cause "hell, we were mad and had to get someone", is the product of a warped and feeble mind.
Bush lied, the CIA lied, the Russians lied, Clinton lied, and the British lied.
Bland Wrote:if you truly believe that this is good justification then you are one messed up little fucker.
this "feel good cause we got someone" war pulled massive resources from getting the group actually responsible for 9/11. bush didnt send troops into the area where we knew osama was until 2 weeks later.
for you to say that the invasion was justified cause "hell, we were mad and had to get someone", is the product of a warped and feeble mind.
I never said I agreed with it. I never said it was a good and valid reason. It's not a good justification to go to war. That's stupid and so transparent that it's not even funny.
But we shouldn't have needed 9/11 to get that fucker out of office. What's the point of the UN when their directives get ignored. What's the point of spending hundreds of billions a year on the military when they aren't utilized.
The guy was a known murderer of his own people, he was a known ally and supporter of terrorists (be they al Queda or otherwise), and the fact that he refused to let weapons inspectors inspect his weapons (given his history) should lead to valid concern that he's doing so because he has something he doesn't want people to see.
He should have been removed in '91. But that wasn't the directive, so we let it slide. When it became evident that Iraq was going to ignore the agreement that ended our occupation during Desert Storm, he should have been removed then. But Clinton wanted to try and build a coalition for 10 years. He didn't want to interfere with international affairs. It's like gun control. What's the point of having the laws if no one is going to enforce them.
The excuse that Bush used to invade I feel wasn't faulty (concern over weapons). The timing of the invasion is what's bullshit, and why it wasn't the real reason, but that's stupid because people should have cared about how Sadam was refusing to comply with any orders. How much longer were we supposed to wait to negotiate with the guy and wait for sanctions to work? Another 10 years.
Isn't the risk of going in and finding out he didn't have any WMD and looking like an ass a better option than "negotiating" until a known mass murderer unleases a potential nuclear arsenal?
Can you possibly ever debate anything without dismissing everyone else as stupid and feeble? It's so pathetic.
you also have to remember that the u.s. were the ones who kept him in power for so long, that armed him, that said we didnt care if he invaded kuwait and then changed our minds. its all bullshit and propoganda.
Quote:But we shouldn't have needed 9/11 to get that fucker out of office. What's the point of the UN when their directives get ignored. What's the point of spending hundreds of billions a year on the military when they aren't utilized.
If you think that the military wasn't being utilized then you are naive. There were troops all over the world solving problems.
galt, there are ruthless dictators all over the world. why is saddam so special that we needed to take him out right now?
saddam and al queda are diametrically opposed in their dogma. bin laden hates saddam as much as he hates bush.
the issue isn't that we went to iraq and toppled sadaam. the issue is the timing and the error of WMD, going after Iraq when Osama was still an issue. and he still is, and Al Queda now has a foothold in Iraq. at this rate, maybe we can go into other countries, muck about, and create more negative feelings to Al Queda can get footholds all over the place.
Edited By Gooch on 1091041191
i cant think of a better terrorist recruitment tool than the video of the US beating the shit out of Iraq.
Ruthless dictators that may be developing a nuclear arsenal and have been shown to have the willigness to use them should all be toppled regardless of whether they are in oil rich countries or not.
al Queda has no foothold in Iraq. No one has a foothold. It's anarchy right now. If al Queda wants to try and fight the US for control of Iraq, I'd welcome it.
The Osama hates Sadam as much as he hates the US is just wrong. It's been shown that he feels the US and western culture is the worst of the worst and everything else is secondary. It has also been reported (and linked in one of the previous threads we've discussed this) that bin Laden was open to working with Iraq, and that he viewed the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
plus we ignored the more credible threat of north korea. iraq was nothing more than a personal vendetta based on radical ideology.
the worst of it is that we have lost any credibility for next time we feel there is a real threat from a rogue nation.
Quote:Ruthless dictators that may be developing a nuclear arsenal and have been shown to have the willigness to use them should all be toppled regardless of whether they are in oil rich countries or not.
then why didnt Bush invade north korea before iraq?
he thought saddam might have wmd and was willing to use it. we KNOW Kim Jong Il has WMD, also is a know murderer of its own people, and is willing to use it.
I agree with both those points. Bush has been inconsistent and is rightfully hated universally because of it.
I'd still vote for him before Kerry though.
why would you vote for him before kerry?
Quote:enemy of my enemy is my friend.
A ploy Bin laden used when he had the US train his people to fight the Russians.