What would Clinton had done?

[Backtothemac]

I personally think that had Clinton been in office on 9/11 that his path would have resembled what we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. The ironic thing is that Saddam bluffed the world into thinking he had WMD's. Had he actually had them, and we had not gone in, if he would have given a terror group weapons of mass distruction and they used them in say 3 years here in the US, would we not have a commission calling for Bush's head for not acting on the intel.

[vwcruisn]

I personally think that had Clinton been in office on 9/11 that his path would have resembled what we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. The ironic thing is that Saddam bluffed the world into thinking he had WMD's. Had he actually had them, and we had not gone in, if he would have given a terror group weapons of mass distruction and they used them in say 3 years here in the US, would we not have a commission calling for Bush's head for not acting on the intel.


I hate this arguement which now seems to be common in regarding the WMDs. Now that we know it was all a big lie, and there are no WMDs, everyones saying.. WELL, if they WOULD have been there... Sadam could have done damage. Hello... There are NO WMDs. Case closed.

[Backtothemac]

I hate this arguement which now seems to be common in regarding the WMDs. Now that we know it was all a big lie, and there are no WMDs, everyones saying.. WELL, if they WOULD have been there... Sadam could have done damage. Hello... There are NO WMDs. Case closed.

Except that the world thought they were there. Even the Clinton administration did. That is the point. We were all dupped.

[mactastic]

Except that the world thought they were there. Even the Clinton administration did. That is the point. We were all dupped.

But only GWB was duped into actually invading and trying to occupy Iraq based on that info. Even his dad was smart enough to know that going into Iraq was a risky gamble at best and a reciepe for a quagmire at worst. Other people looked at that intel and wern't convinced the way Dubya was. He gambled and lost.

[vwcruisn]

Except that the world thought they were there. Even the Clinton administration did. That is the point. We were all dupped.


Most of the world was for the continuation of weapons inspections in Iraq. Most of the world was against a pre emptive invasion.

[zimv20]

here's my deal w/ bush and 9/11 --

yeah, preventing it was a longshot. i will always wonder, if the clinton policies had been continued into bush's tenure, if things would have turned out differently.

still, on a very basic "can i blame bush for 9/11?" question, no.

here's where i find fault w/ bush: he's running as the terrorism guy. it's becoming very clear that terrorism was not a priority pre-9/11, so i call half ************. since 9/11, he's put way more time, energy and resources into iraq than AQ / bin laden / international anti-terrorism cooperation. i call full ************ on that.

what would clinton (or more to the point, gore) have done? continued the clinton policies. maybe they would have had the forethought to inform the FAA about the hijacking threats. maybe clarke would have had better access. maybe 9/11 could have been prevented.

[zimv20]

also, i think the people who are apologizing for failing the country -- especially dick clarke for initiating that -- showed real class. had bush simply said, "it's not what we were looking at and we made a mistake," i'd cut him a lot more slack. but i think it's a little too late for that.

[blackfox]

I believe the WMD guess on part of the administration was in part a result of their knowledge of what they had provided Hussein w/ in his fight against Iran in the 80s(in terms of weapon tech). Not that the US gave him WMD necessarily, but it was probably a plausible possibility in the future. Not that there was hard proof, mind you...
In terms of if Clinton was in office instead of Bush, I feel things may have progressed similar in many ways. We may still have invaded Iraq. Almost definitely Afghanistan. I feel the chief among the many differences, however, is that unlike Bush, Clinton would have smooth-talked his way into gaining international support/ for our actions. Say what you want about Clinton, but I feel that a smoooth-talking president is such an asset in the modern political world. Clinton had that in spades...Bush, not at all. This has made a considerable difference.

[SlyHunter]

I believe the WMD guess on part of the administration was in part a result of their knowledge of what they had provided Hussein w/ in his fight against Iran in the 80s(in terms of weapon tech). Not that the US gave him WMD necessarily, but it was probably a plausible possibility in the future. Not that there was hard proof, mind you...
In terms of if Clinton was in office instead of Bush, I feel things may have progressed similar in many ways. We may still have invaded Iraq. Almost definitely Afghanistan. I feel the chief among the many differences, however, is that unlike Bush, Clinton would have smooth-talked his way into gaining international support/ for our actions. Say what you want about Clinton, but I feel that a smoooth-talking president is such an asset in the modern political world. Clinton had that in spades...Bush, not at all. This has made a considerable difference.
Plus the stuff he showed the UN inspectors back in the 90's.
Plus informers who told us things we can't verify but thought we did verify enough to prove them as fact. Like the mobil Laboratories purchased from Russia for example. Which we have found but no biologicals were contained in them even tho they were capable of making them there wasn't a trace found and unless you knew what you were doing and were perfect no way to remove all traces.

[zimv20]

Like the mobil Laboratories purchased from Russia for example.
those british-provided trucks have been shown to be hydrogen-producing trucks. your sloppy "facts" won't escape scrutiny. stick to reality.

[SlyHunter]

those british-provided trucks have been shown to be hydrogen-producing trucks. your sloppy "facts" won't escape scrutiny. stick to reality.
before we invaded Iraq the information was mobil laboratories purchased from Russia. And everytime the UN arrived at a building we could see photographs shwoing those vehicles driving away before they arrived.

The fact that maybe we know different now doesn't change what we thought then. My facts weren't that sloppy and your nit picking.

[zimv20]

My facts weren't that sloppy and your nit picking.
my nit picking what? ;-)

hey, i have to admit i missed this sentence when i first read your post:

Plus informers who told us things we can't verify but thought we did verify enough to prove them as fact.

i thought you were still asserting the mobile gas truck thing. my apologies.

[Don't panic]

You are assuming that the reason bush invaded iraq is to find WMD or in connection with 9/11 (and -please- don't bring up the democracy spreading bs or i might puke).

I beg to differ.
This war, like any war, was waged for strategic (maybe tactical in this specific case) and economical reason. (which are not intrinsically good or bad)

WMD were just an excuse to try to legitimize the invasion, and I must say it worked very well, especially within the US (hey, you're still discussing the what ifs...). If we were after WMD we would be in north korea now, not iraq.
For all the little respect i have for cheney and company, I won't buy for a second they they actually believed Saddam had WMD or was developing them for the short term. And even if he did have some, it probably wouldn't have mattered. Nor I think they believed he was in any way involved with 9/11.

In my opinion there were many other, more compelling (to the Bush administration) reasons.
It is well established that iraq was on GWB agenda from day one, well before 9/11,.
The reasons being Oil, the opportunity to have a strong military presence in one of the most (or may be THE most) strategically important region of the world --especially considering that the bases in Saudi Arabia were becoming increasingly less sustainable for political reasons--, and the vision of the neocons at the helm, which is nothing short of imperialistic (the North American Century crap).
Add to that, that the hunt for Osama wasn't proceeding as expected and the prospect of a new "easy" war becomes immediately more desirable (also, always a good distraction from economic dire straits).
Throw into the mix also a couple of other bonuses: the Billions for the reconstruction and arms businesses as a nice way to transfer government money directly in friendly corporate pockets.

Finally, one of the reasons that IMO played a huge role in the buildup for the iraq war was the pettiest one: mid-term elections. The GOP won the elections, and both houses, riding the wave of misplaced patriotism built on the hype that saddam was going to bomb us any minute.
At the time I, for one, thought that it was the MAIN reason, and that after winning the elections, the whole circus would loose steam and we'd go back to business as usual (which would have been a brilliant, if reckless, political move). But I guess they either remained engulfed in their own hype, or the above stated reasons became preponderant.

to conclude and go back to the issue, if Gore (or hypothetically, Clinton) were in charge, I think we would have had a better chance that 9/11 would have not happened, because of different priorities (but i don't particularly fault gw for this). If 9/11 had happened anyway, I think that thing would have been very similar in afghanistan but totally different in iraq, because of completely different international approaches and because none of the reasons stated above would have been core to a democratic (in any sense ;)) president.

[Sayhey]

If Gore or Clinton had been President there would have been a retaliation for the Cole attacks. There would have been high level meetings of Cabinet officials to try and work on the heightened level of indications of a terrorist attack in the summer of 2001. Would they have prevented 9/11? Who knows, but they wouldn't have ignored the threat. Given the reality of the attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan would have been the same under any US President. The invasion of Iraq would not have taken place, although tensions would have remained high between the two countries and inspections would likely have resumed. The current policy toward the Israeli/Palestinian issue would also have been different, as would the relationship of the US to most of our traditional allies (much friendlier.)

[Neserk]

But only GWB was duped into actually invading and trying to occupy Iraq based on that info. Even his dad was smart enough to know that going into Iraq was a risky gamble at best and a reciepe for a quagmire at worst. Other people looked at that intel and wern't convinced the way Dubya was. He gambled and lost.


Dubya *wanted* to be duped because he *wanted* a war. He is an idiot but I still think he choose to believe it so he could "justify" a war.

[SlyHunter]

You are assuming that the reason bush invaded iraq is to find WMD or in connection with 9/11 (and -please- don't bring up the democracy spreading bs or i might puke).

I beg to differ.
This war, like any war, was waged for strategic (maybe tactical in this specific case) and economical reason. (which are not intrinsically good or bad)

WMD were just an excuse to try to legitimize the invasion, and I must say it worked very well, especially within the US (hey, you're still discussing the what ifs...). If we were after WMD we would be in north korea now, not iraq.
For all the little respect i have for cheney and company, I won't buy for a second they they actually believed Saddam had WMD or was developing them for the short term. And even if he did have some, it probably wouldn't have mattered. Nor I think they believed he was in any way involved with 9/11.

But WMD's made a perfectly good excuss for us to do what we needed to do for our country and more importantly for our allies. Unlike some people we stand by our allies. Like Turkey and Israel. Also Iraq was a danger to other countries like Egypt and Kuwaitt. There were a multitude of reasons we could not use with the UN to get them to join us for they don't believe such reasons as reasons to go to war.

In my opinion there were many other, more compelling (to the Bush administration) reasons.
It is well established that iraq was on GWB agenda from day one, well before 9/11,.
The reasons being Oil, the opportunity to have a strong military presence in one of the most (or may be THE most) strategically important region of the world --especially considering that the bases in Saudi Arabia were becoming increasingly less sustainable for political reasons--, and the vision of the neocons at the helm, which is nothing short of imperialistic (the North American Century crap).

if that was the case we really messed up because they rejoined OPEC.

Finally, one of the reasons that IMO played a huge role in the buildup for the iraq war was the pettiest one: mid-term elections. The GOP won the elections, and both houses, riding the wave of misplaced patriotism built on the hype that saddam was going to bomb us any minute.
At the time I, for one, thought that it was the MAIN reason, and that after winning the elections, the whole circus would loose steam and we'd go back to business as usual (which would have been a brilliant, if reckless, political move). But I guess they either remained engulfed in their own hype, or the above stated reasons became preponderant.

yet you probably don't think Clinton bombed the asprin factory to cover up his perjury?

to conclude and go back to the issue, if Gore (or hypothetically, Clinton) were in charge, I think we would have had a better chance that 9/11 would have not happened, because of different priorities (but i don't particularly fault gw for this). If 9/11 had happened anyway, I think that thing would have been very similar in afghanistan but totally different in iraq, because of completely different international approaches and because none of the reasons stated above would have been core to a democratic (in any sense ;)) president.
Yeah the would've sent out people to find out what we did wrong to upset the terrorist and try to make nice with them in the hopes they would do so again. Also pay them off like the Saudi's do.

Also back to Korea. Unlike Iraq Korea has nuclear weapons. It is too late to go into Korea like we did Iraq because the casualties would be much higher particularly to those people who don't want us to go in the S. Koreans. We would end up being responsible for nuklear wastes on S. Korean soil because it is obvious that the first thing N. Korea would do is lob a couple over there should we attack. Besides this should be China's problem not the US's problem. It is in Chinas backyard. China has bigger reasons to not want Nuclear weapons in the hands of N. Korea. Thus China should be the one dealing with them not the US.

Addendum if we had waited until Iraq did get nuclear weapons it would have been disasterous to go in. Saddam could then invade Kuwaitt and tell us where we could stick it. "stop me or interfere with my right to possess Kuwaitt and I'll nuke Israel." and then later no matter what we said or did he would laugh in our faces and nuke Israel anyhow. And the so called Arabs that call themselves Palestinians would say to the deaths of the Palestinians it would cause "they died for a just cause." Preventing this was an excellent reason for invading Iraq it just wasn't a reason we could have used with the UN. And our idiot president went over board at trying to appease the UN knowing this. WAsted precious time trying to swing vote over that could never have brought over. We could've lost many more men because of his stalling with the UN when he should've been over there already.

For those who havn't figured it out I don't like Bush, he is simply better than the alternative. I think his father should be tried for treason and thrown in jail. His father had full veto rights over the UN's constitution and refused to veto it. He justifies it by refusing to sign it and letting it go into affect without his signature. That wasn't good enough. His job was to protect the constitution of the united states period! He didn't do his job. All he had to do was veto the durn thing. The UN constitution states in laymens terms that men have the right of free speach as long as it does not interfere with UN policy, you have the right of free religion (allot of middle easterner countries fought to keep that out but didn't) as long as it does not interfere with un policy. All of the so called rights has a stipulation that if it interfers with the UN then they are not really rights. And contained in that same constitution is a clause that all member nations are subject to that constitution even when it is a violation of that nations own constitution. Legally our constitution is not even worth toilet paper. Legally our legal justice system is subordinate to the UN's all because Bush Sr. violated his oath to defend it like he was suppose to. The only reason I will vote for Bush Jr. is because if I voted for that libertarian running for office and if more people did the same Kerry would win. And kerry is even worse.

[Backtothemac]

If Gore or Clinton had been President there would have been a retaliation for the Cole attacks. There would have been high level meetings of Cabinet officials to try and work on the heightened level of indications of a terrorist attack in the summer of 2001. Would they have prevented 9/11? Who knows, but they wouldn't have ignored the threat. Given the reality of the attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan would have been the same under any US President. The invasion of Iraq would not have taken place, although tensions would have remained high between the two countries and inspections would likely have resumed. The current policy toward the Israeli/Palestinian issue would also have been different, as would the relationship of the US to most of our traditional allies (much friendlier.)

Now wait a sec. That I have to disagree with. Sure, Bush ignored the threat for 238 days, but what is your excuse for the government after the 1st world trade center bombings? What about after Kenya and Tanzinia? Our government has failed us for over a decade. Not just this administration, but the policy itself. How would the Israeli / Palestinian issue be different? How would it be different with the French? They have always hated us. You can't label this administration for stressing the relationship with France. Hell like I said before in 86 they would not use their airspace, so we "mistakenly" bombed the french embasy in Libya.

[Backtothemac]

Dubya *wanted* to be duped because he *wanted* a war. He is an idiot but I still think he choose to believe it so he could "justify" a war.

My friend. Can you not understand that after 9/11 the action of inaction has become more dangerous to our way of life than action. That is the Catch-22 that the administration, and ALL future administrations are in. The fight was brought to us, and we have chosen to fight it head on.

Bush wasn't duped, the WORLD was dupped. And were they actually dupped. We know Saddam had WMD's because, well, he has used them. But, the point of the matter is that the world, even Syria thought that Saddam still had the weapons, and WE decided not to wait for inspectors to find out.

[Don't panic]

But WMD's made a perfectly good excuss for us … snip …
There were a multitude of reasons we could not use with the UN to get them to join us for they don't believe such reasons as reasons to go to war.

WOW SlyHunter! We almost partially semi-agree on something!
That GWB and his accolites lied their ass off and that WMD, 9/11 and the wwpursuit of democracy had nothing to do with the real reasons iraq was invaded, and it wasn’t a mistake due to faulty intelligence.
It wasn’t Saddam who duped the world. It was the US government. As of 2002 Saddam did not have wmd and he wasn’t going to. Saddam attacking Israel was not a scenario.

I’ll summarize from my previous post the reasons that (IMO) got us involved in Iraq, moreless in order of importance (also IMO)

- direct control of the second largest oil reserves in the world
- long-term massive military presence in ME, but out of Saudi Arabia
- a platform for breezing through mid-term election, cashing on america’s blind form of nationalism
- neocons imperialistic ambitions
- money for the weaponry lobby
- money from reconstruction into Dick’n’friends accounts
- distraction from the horrible economic situation
- distraction from lack of progress in AQ eradication
- protection of GW from any criticism, as the commander in chief (for a while)
- set up for 2004 campaign
I’m probably leaving something out, but you get the picture.

where we do differ is that you seem to think that at least some of those were perfectly good reason to invade iraq and I don’t. The point is that that stated reasons to invade were lies. You know it, I know it and GW knows it. If he had said: ‘we are going into iraq to seize their oil, get our boys and girls some action and make a buck or two in the way’, I seriously doubt that he would have got congress or a majority of the american people to come along (and don’t forget thast thousands of people died because of this adventure).
You seem to think that this was a just war. I don’t, but it’s a matter of opinion. What I think is certain, is that this war was illegal (a matter of law).

On your other points. We do seem to stand by israel in a way that often defies logic and our own interest, but turkey certainly wasn’t supporting the invasion, and we could barely buy the usage of just their skies with a handsome aid package and other concessions, and I fail to see how last year’s iraq threatened egypt (much less kuwait, where we were in forces).

As far as the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, I see that as an other unjustified, illegal act of terrorism, much like the assassination of political adversaries in israel or our firing missiles at cars in foreign countries (yemen). If you think somebody committed a crime, you arrest them and try them under the LAW. Much more so if you have the evidence.
That said, there is a major difference in magnitude (number of lives costed and long-lasting effects worldwide) between this and iraq.

And regarding Korea: I’m not advocating in the least that we go there. We have no business going in there, nor does china.


Yeah the would've sent out people to find out what we did wrong to upset the terrorist and try to make nice with them in the hopes they would do so again.

honestly, addressing some of the issues at their roots (in particular in the israeli/palestinian crisis) doesn’t seem such a bad idea to me. Unfortunately fundamentalists (islamic, christians or wathever) will also be there, no matter what, the key is isolating them by cutting their BS supplies. If we had invested what we are spending in iraq in palestine I guarantee you that OBL and the other nutheads would have nobody listening to them, and many more willing to give them up.


{edit: typos and a couple clarifications}

[Backtothemac]

You have to be kidding me panic. Are you for real? Our government dupped the world? WHAT FOR 12 YEARS! ARE YOU SERIOUS! Ok, well, then Iraq attacking Israel is not a senerio? Why, because it had happened just what 10 years before? You have to be kidding me.

Look, if a dog down the street attacks you and hurts you somewhat, do you wait for the dog to do it again everytime it gets out of its yard, or do you shoot the dog in the head?

[SlyHunter]

give me your lunch money or I'm going to beat you up.
Give you and you give in the rest of your life.
Korea isn't interested in war they are interested in a handout.
We are not responsible for the lives in Korea their government is. It is not our fault their form of government is slowly steadily failing. Yet they want to threaten us to get money. Not a penny.

[Don't panic]

You have to be kidding me panic. Are you for real? Our government dupped the world? WHAT FOR 12 YEARS! ARE YOU SERIOUS! Ok, well, then Iraq attacking Israel is not a senerio? Why, because it had happened just what 10 years before? You have to be kidding me.

Look, if a dog down the street attacks you and hurts you somewhat, do you wait for the dog to do it again everytime it gets out of its yard, or do you shoot the dog in the head?

So you actually believe that the war in Iraq was about WMD? Of course Iraq had missiles and chemical agents years ago (guess with who's help?), but it didn't last year. Saddam couldn't have delivered a rock in israel to save is life. No nuclear program, no chemical program, no biological program, no delivery system. Nothing. And there was zero evidence to point to the contrary. The UN inspector knew this, half of the world new this and our guys knew this as well. they just didn't want you to know.

If a dog down the street attacked you and hurt you somewhat, and now it's chained in a cage with its teeth pulled out, but still barks at you, do you shoot it in the head?

[Don't panic]

give me your lunch money or I'm going to beat you up.
Give you and you give in the rest of your life.
Korea isn't interested in war they are interested in a handout.
We are not responsible for the lives in Korea their government is. It is not our fault their form of government is slowly steadily failing. Yet they want to threaten us to get money. Not a penny.

sorry but if this was a reply to my post, i don't get it :confused:

[Sayhey]

Now wait a sec. That I have to disagree with. Sure, Bush ignored the threat for 238 days, but what is your excuse for the government after the 1st world trade center bombings? What about after Kenya and Tanzinia? Our government has failed us for over a decade. Not just this administration, but the policy itself. How would the Israeli / Palestinian issue be different? How would it be different with the French? They have always hated us. You can't label this administration for stressing the relationship with France. Hell like I said before in 86 they would not use their airspace, so we "mistakenly" bombed the french embasy in Libya.

B2TM, don't read into my post more than I said. I don't think a Clinton or Gore administration would have done away with al Qaeda. I do think they would have retaliated for the Cole as they were waiting for the CIA's determination of responsibility at the time of the transition to Bush. They had a history of retaliation against such acts including the arrest of Ramses Yousef for the first attack, the cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, and the attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters after the attempted assassination of GHW Bush. That doesn't mean that they would have been effective in destroying al Qaeda.

As to the French and other allies, I would look to the example of Kosovo as to the method of a Gore administration in keeping our allies together. I would remind you that after 9/11 our NATO allies invoked Article 5 of the treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all. Bush ignored this and wasted the good will of the world in his preemptive attack on Iraq. I believe a Gore administration would have done the exact opposite. Would a unified NATO response, along with most of the rest of the world (including most Islamic nations) been successful in destroying al Qaeda? I don't know, but we would have had a better chance.

Israel and Palestine would be very different. Bush ignored the problem for most of the early part of his administration. Gore would likely have continued the Clinton personal involvement. Bush has supported the efforts of the Sharon government at almost every turn. Gore would have continued better, if not equal, relations with the Palestinian side.

All of this of course is speculation, but I think there is abundant evidence that we would have been in a more secure and unified world in the struggle against terrorism if the Supreme Court had not stepped in and selected Bush to be President.

[Backtothemac]

B2TM, don't read into my post more than I said. I don't think a Clinton or Gore administration would have done away with al Qaeda. I do think they would have retaliated for the Cole as they were waiting for the CIA's determination of responsibility at the time of the transition to Bush. They had a history of retaliation against such acts including the arrest of Ramses Yousef for the first attack, the cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan, and the attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters after the attempted assassination of GHW Bush. That doesn't mean that they would have been effective in destroying al Qaeda.

As to the French and other allies, I would look to the example of Kosovo as to the method of a Gore administration in keeping our allies together. I would remind you that after 9/11 our NATO allies invoked Article 5 of the treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all. Bush ignored this and wasted the good will of the world in his preemptive attack on Iraq. I believe a Gore administration would have done the exact opposite. Would a unified NATO response, along with most of the rest of the world (including most Islamic nations) been successful in destroying al Qaeda? I don't know, but we would have had a better chance.

Israel and Palestine would be very different. Bush ignored the problem for most of the early part of his administration. Gore would likely have continued the Clinton personal involvement. Bush has supported the efforts of the Sharon government at almost every turn. Gore would have continued better, if not equal, relations with the Palestinian side.

All of this of course is speculation, but I think there is abundant evidence that we would have been in a more secure and unified world in the struggle against terrorism if the Supreme Court had not stepped in and selected Bush to be President.


K, but here is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not. We went into Bosnia at the urging of the Germans, and the French. We wanted the Russians to help but we did not get it. Now, we went without UN support we went at the behest of two allies.

Now, in Iraq, over 50 countries directly supported our efforts. France and Germany did not. So are you bothered because the UN did not support us, or France and Germany. Yea, Nato wanted to support action in Iraq, but France and Germany blocked it.

Man, you make a logical arguement and then bring up the Supreme Court picking Bush. Don't you realize that you loose all credibility when you do that? ;)

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
give me your lunch money or I'm going to beat you up.
Give you and you give in the rest of your life.
Korea isn't interested in war they are interested in a handout.
We are not responsible for the lives in Korea their government is. It is not our fault their form of government is slowly steadily failing. Yet they want to threaten us to get money. Not a penny.

sorry but if this was a reply to my post, i don't get it :confused:
That is one of the problems.

[SlyHunter]

K, but here is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not. We went into Bosnia at the urging of the Germans, and the French. We wanted the Russians to help but we did not get it. Now, we went without UN support we went at the behest of two allies.

Now, in Iraq, over 50 countries directly supported our efforts. France and Germany did not. So are you bothered because the UN did not support us, or France and Germany. Yea, Nato wanted to support action in Iraq, but France and Germany blocked it.

Man, you make a logical arguement and then bring up the Supreme Court picking Bush. Don't you realize that you loose all credibility when you do that? ;)
France isn't a very good ally.
Remember back prior to WWII France had a defense treaty with Czechovakia. Nazi's attack Czechovakia. Was france there to help? Nope, it is historical fact that they made a secret pact with the Nazi's to not help their own ally. Theri reward was to be invaded later by Germany and I hear they didn't even have to fire a single shot to do it. Then they later complain that we waited so long before getting involved. By the way they run things today we shouldn't of gone in at all back then. Once the Japanese were defeated we did not have to go after Germany but we did. Some argued it wasn't our problem. Luckily for everyone those lost that argument.

Anyhow back to France. When we asked for their help with Iraq they snubbed their noses on us. When they accused us of almost waiting too late in Germany they now accuse us of jumping the gun in Iraq. They wanted them to have more time like 12 years wasn't enough time. They organized Un countries against us. They threatened to not allow some European countries into the EU if they voted for going into Iraq. And later we found out that all hteir yelling about its all about oil was right. They with Germany, Russia and Japan had secret oil deals that violated the UN mandates with Iraq and by invading Iraq we nullified those illegal oil trades. They even had the gall to demand that we make Iraq honor those trades after we went in. Nah France isn't much of an ally and should not be a member of NATO. They have veto power there too so we need to abolish NATO and recreate it with our real allies in it. They wouldn't even allow NATO defense of TURKEY another member of NATO we had to go outside of NATO to defend Turkey just in case Iraq retaliated against them as we went in. this attack one of us you attack all of us doesn't apply apparently cuzz they weren't there for us. Don't say how we have gone into another country without the UN's permission for example France has done it over 50 times since the creation of the UN. The only country apparently that needs UN permission to fight a war is the US. Nobody else bothers to do it and are not yelled at like we are when we done it in our own best interest.


BTW I don't include Germany because after WWII to insure they never try it again they themselves altered their constitution where they are no longer allowed by their own constitution to ever attack another country unless they themselves are directly attacked. It was short sighted to put it in there but considering their history I understand it. And they could not vote for war in Iraq in the UN without violating their own constitution.

[Sayhey]

K, but here is the truth whether you choose to believe it or not. We went into Bosnia at the urging of the Germans, and the French. We wanted the Russians to help but we did not get it. Now, we went without UN support we went at the behest of two allies.

Now, in Iraq, over 50 countries directly supported our efforts. France and Germany did not. So are you bothered because the UN did not support us, or France and Germany. Yea, Nato wanted to support action in Iraq, but France and Germany blocked it.

Man, you make a logical arguement and then bring up the Supreme Court picking Bush. Don't you realize that you loose all credibility when you do that? ;)

Are we talking about Bosnia or Kosovo? In Bosnia we helped organize a largely peace keeping force that helped stop that bloody civil war. This was done not only with the support of the French and Germans, but almost all of the rest of the world. Kosovo was done with NATOs approval, including Germany and France. The Russians and Chinese blocked UN approval of the NATO action. It was the Clinton administration that organized support for the Kosovo war. It is not called "Madeleine's War" for nothing, as Sec. Albright fought tooth and nail for the action.

In Iraq we brought British troops along and have added some others since the invasion. The figure of 50 includes many countries who have only supported the war on paper. A unified effort to force Iraq to answer and open up for inspection concerning WMDs was possible, but that was not enough for the Bush administration. In general we have said that this is the action we will take and the rest of the world must get behind us. Much different than the actions in Bosnia or Kosovo.

Sorry about the mention of the Supreme Court's selection - I couldn't resist! :p

[Backtothemac]

Are we talking about Bosnia or Kosovo? In Bosnia we helped organize a largely peace keeping force that helped stop that bloody civil war. This was done not only with the support of the French and Germans, but almost all of the rest of the world. Kosovo was done with NATOs approval, including Germany and France. The Russians and Chinese blocked UN approval of the NATO action. It was the Clinton administration that organized support for the Kosovo war. It is not called "Madeleine's War" for nothing, as Sec. Albright fought tooth and nail for the action.

In Iraq we brought British troops along and have added some others since the invasion. The figure of 50 includes many countries who have only supported the war on paper. A unified effort to force Iraq to answer and open up for inspection concerning WMDs was possible, but that was not enough for the Bush administration. In general we have said that this is the action we will take and the rest of the world must get behind us. Much different than the actions in Bosnia or Kosovo.

Sorry about the mention of the Supreme Court's selection - I couldn't resist! :p

Kosovo, sorry, I have been blonde today ;)

[Sayhey]

Kosovo, sorry, I have been blonde today ;)

Not a problem, my own "blonde" moments come more and more frequently. ;)

[Sayhey]

France isn't a very good ally.
Remember back prior to WWII France had a defense treaty with Czechovakia. Nazi's attack Czechovakia. Was france there to help? Nope, it is historical fact that they made a secret pact with the Nazi's to not help their own ally. Theri reward was to be invaded later by Germany and I hear they didn't even have to fire a single shot to do it. Then they later complain that we waited so long before getting involved. By the way they run things today we shouldn't of gone in at all back then. Once the Japanese were defeated we did not have to go after Germany but we did. Some argued it wasn't our problem. Luckily for everyone those lost that argument.

Anyhow back to France. When we asked for their help with Iraq they snubbed their noses on us. When they accused us of almost waiting too late in Germany they now accuse us of jumping the gun in Iraq. They wanted them to have more time like 12 years wasn't enough time. They organized Un countries against us. They threatened to not allow some European countries into the EU if they voted for going into Iraq. And later we found out that all hteir yelling about its all about oil was right. They with Germany, Russia and Japan had secret oil deals that violated the UN mandates with Iraq and by invading Iraq we nullified those illegal oil trades. They even had the gall to demand that we make Iraq honor those trades after we went in. Nah France isn't much of an ally and should not be a member of NATO. They have veto power there too so we need to abolish NATO and recreate it with our real allies in it. They wouldn't even allow NATO defense of TURKEY another member of NATO we had to go outside of NATO to defend Turkey just in case Iraq retaliated against them as we went in. this attack one of us you attack all of us doesn't apply apparently cuzz they weren't there for us. Don't say how we have gone into another country without the UN's permission for example France has done it over 50 times since the creation of the UN. The only country apparently that needs UN permission to fight a war is the US. Nobody else bothers to do it and are not yelled at like we are when we done it in our own best interest.


BTW I don't include Germany because after WWII to insure they never try it again they themselves altered their constitution where they are no longer allowed by their own constitution to ever attack another country unless they themselves are directly attacked. It was short sighted to put it in there but considering their history I understand it. And they could not vote for war in Iraq in the UN without violating their own constitution.

I'm amazed at the scale of the French bashing in this country. Most of it is based, like your post, on half-truths and outright falsehoods. There was no secret treaty to sell out Czechoslovakia. It was done right out in the open with the British leading the way. That is the origin of Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" speech. The French did resist the German invasion and did indeed fire shots against the Nazi armies. They fought the war with tactics, including the famous "Maginot Line," that were outdated and incapable of stopping the Germans, but resist they surely did. That includes the fierce resistance under occupation and the efforts of the Free French troops, lead by de Gaulle. France was certainly the largest of the countries to fall quickly to the blitzkrieg tactics (still used today by US forces in Iraq) but it was not the only country to do so. The French people proved during World War II and on many other occasions, including our own revolution, that they are exceedingly trustworthy allies. You should also get a history book to learn that the German surrender took place before the Japanese not the other way around. The complaints on opening a Second Front were mostly from our Soviet allies who were fighting the Germans almost on their own for years. Only when the US forces began to fight German forces in Northern Italy and really after D-Day did that change. Though British and American historians like to play up the North Africa campaign it involved a relatively small amount of troops.

As to the French and Russian deals on oil they were perfectly legal under the UN sanctions. Who do you think was buying that oil under the plan we ok'd through the UN? Try and get your facts straight next time.

[SlyHunter]

As to the French and Russian deals on oil they were perfectly legal under the UN sanctions. Who do you think was buy that oil under the plan we ok'd through the UN. Try and get your facts straight next time.

Actually this I do have my facts straight they had legal oil deals thru the food for oil program than they had additional oil contracts made up where they pay now get the oil later after the sanction are removed which technically was a violation of theUN deal.


The rest of your spiel was very illuminating. I still don't trust the French.

[zimv20]

I still don't trust the French.
i don't think they trust you

[Sayhey]

As to the French and Russian deals on oil they were perfectly legal under the UN sanctions. Who do you think was buy that oil under the plan we ok'd through the UN. Try and get your facts straight next time.

Actually this I do have my facts straight they had legal oil deals thru the food for oil program than they had additional oil contracts made up where they pay now get the oil later after the sanction are removed which technically was a violation of theUN deal.


The rest of your spiel was very illuminating. I still don't trust the French.

Glad to illuminate some basic history for you. I'd be happy to look up the violations of UN sanctions by the French if you provide some more information (link please.) I'm not saying that either the French or the Russian couldn't have made the deals you describe, but I'd be interested in your sources. I'm not sure how that makes the French untrustworthy allies. The wouldn't be the first to violate sanctions (see for example the US trade of weapons in the Iran/Contra scandal.)

[Don't panic]

Quote:





Originally Posted by SlyHunter
give me your lunch money or I'm going to beat you up.
Give you and you give in the rest of your life.
Korea isn't interested in war they are interested in a handout.
We are not responsible for the lives in Korea their government is. It is not our fault their form of government is slowly steadily failing. Yet they want to threaten us to get money. Not a penny.

Quote:
sorry but if this was a reply to my post, i don't get it

That is one of the problems.

well, it would help if you started making some sense.
how does your rant on north korea relates to the rest of the discussion? please enlighten me

[zimv20]

how does your rant on north korea relates to the rest of the discussion?
actually, he just said 'korea'. south koreans call their country 'korea'. i wasn't sure who he was on about.

[SlyHunter]

As to the French and Russian deals on oil they were perfectly legal under the UN sanctions. Who do you think was buy that oil under the plan we ok'd through the UN. Try and get your facts straight next time.

Actually this I do have my facts straight they had legal oil deals thru the food for oil program than they had additional oil contracts made up where they pay now get the oil later after the sanction are removed which technically was a violation of theUN deal.


The rest of your spiel was very illuminating. I still don't trust the French.


Glad to illuminate some basic history for you. I'd be happy to look up the violations of UN sanctions by the French if you provide some more information (link please.) I'm not saying that either the French or the Russian couldn't have made the deals you describe, but I'd be interested in your sources. I'm not sure how that makes the French untrustworthy allies. The wouldn't be the first to violate sanctions (see for example the US trade of weapons in the Iran/Contra scandal.)

I accidentally quoted wrong post so I edited this in.

The intent of the food for oil program was to limit the money for food only. They bypassed this by giving the money directly to Saddam for future oil for when the sanctions would be eventually lifted. This bypassed the purpose of the sanctions and explains why they weren't working. Long as Saddam kept getting enough money to pay for his army's he was able to survive.


The problem is I don't keep all these links filed in categories etc thruout the years. I do keep the memmory of reading these reports. The fact that I've been able to scramble and find the links up to know for waht for me is extremely old information should mean something. I assure I perfer to lose an argument than to win with lies or deceit.

I do remember after we went into Iraq France and others had the gall to demand that the US make the new government of Iraq honored those committments and give them their oil thus as far as I'm concerned validated all of the information I heard about this. Ie they admitted it. Problem is in a black and white world they did not violate un sanctions what they did was usurped the purpose of the sanctions by using an overlooked loophole nobody knew was there. They were the reason Saddam stalled for 12 years. He thought he could get away with it because they helped make him think that by making these clandestine deals. Had we been 100% behind the sanctions as they were intended and had we all been 100% behind him abiding by the surrender agreement or else "dire consequences" then he would have given in. But France gave them hope with their veto and their efforts and their clandestine deals. We the US had no choice but to go in or forever here after nobody would take our threats or our promises seriously again. We had to follow thru or else. The UN should have lead the way.

[SlyHunter]

actually, he just said 'korea'. south koreans call their country 'korea'. i wasn't sure who he was on about.
People use N. Korea as an excuss that we attacked Iraq for the wrong reason stating that N. Korea was the greater threat thus that brought N. Korea into the conversation. If you look at previous posts you would find that out on your own.

[zimv20]

People use N. Korea as an excuss that we attacked Iraq for the wrong reason stating that N. Korea was the greater threat thus that brought N. Korea into the conversation. If you look at previous posts you would find that out on your own.
you are a complex person