Exactly what do you not understand that Clinton did not start a war against Iraq. At best there were some airstrikes because Iraq wasn't "cooperating" with the requests of the US and the UK to let their CIA and MI6 secret agents under the guise of WMD inspections gaine access to Saddam's Hussein headquarters. Iraq called the US and the UK out on their spy attempts and like 1 or 2 years later, the US got exposed that the Iraqi's were right and that the US and UK were abusing their power to spy on Saddam. The inspectors had access to everything else, and they found nothing... and so no real war started. You can't compare that to GWB endless lies of claiming Iraq got WMD's and than start a full scale war against Iraq, with some bombs that Clinton tossed. While the bulk of your quotes are from the GWB era.
You are speaking from a point of view of hindsight. However, when the UK came to Eisenhower, they knew that Mosaddegh was not a strong leader and may go to the Communist side in order to survive. But the coup was clandestine in nature, and was financed by the CIA in that coup. None of that information was knew in 1952. it became known in the 2000s when the documents became declassified. Hence you are speaking from a hindsight point of view. Or in other words, Mosaddegh was to survive by going to the other side, at least that was the thinking then. but then again, what do you think Mosoddegh was going to do, offer tea and biscuits to resolve the differences and why there was increasing pressure for him to resign, or do you think the Soviet Propoganda at that time came from the CIA too?
Declassified documents doesn't make it hindsight. It gives the actual INSIDE information. lol And you're repeating the same nonsense again. I already told you what he did to the communist party in his own country, which frankly was flat out undemocratic. But it does make it utterly retarded to suggest he would ask the commies for some help, after he made sure they weren't even part of the opposition.
The post I responded had to do with BEFORE the second invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, I am well aware of what Bush, the GOP, and a majority of Democrats have said in order to get the American public on board. However, what you fail to realize is that despite the lies, Iraq was not innocent, were still not fully cooperating with IAEA, the UN, and the UNSC, and with France and Germany circumventing the UNSC sanctions in play already, Saddam pretty much divided the UNSC and the UN trying to make the US the bad guy. For me, there were only two options. Acquissce which would have been much more devestating internationally when the next Saddam Hussein came into power and had weasons of mass destruction, say Iran for instance, or invade. There was no middle ground here.. The Arms Control International would beg to differ. WMDs is not the Bomb or anything like that, it was research, all of it. There was some biological research that was unaccounted for. There was somce chemical research that was unaccounted for. There was some nuclear research unnaccounted for. And there were a few other things. 95% isn't good enough. Iraq wanted it to be, but not for me and others who needed Iraq to comply completely. The UN inspectors were given fair warning, ample warning, and they fled. They didn't flee for their lives. They fled because when we announced we were coming in, Iraq stopped complying and there was nothing for them to do, hence they fled anyway well before the invasion occurred.
It worked great! Congress abdicated with AUMF and we have essentially perpetual wars all over the globe. The MIC has seen nothing but profits and US troops have died doing the bidding of the Tel Aviv government.
Exactly why are you speciously claiming I said he did? OH I get it now you supported Saddam and believed HIS stories? You seem to forget Saddam was under a cease fire under which WE SPIED ON HIM and he remained in power at our pleasure as long as he met the requirements of that cease fire which he refuse to do. You seem to forget he had thrown out the inspectors and was getting the sanctions lifted. That meant he would rebuild his WMD arsenals use those materials and his oil money to support terrorist in their wars against the western states and reek havoc in the region and the world. What did Bush say that the previous administration did not say? So what? OK deal with these Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." -- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998 "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." --President Bill Clinton, 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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""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: -- Democratic Senators 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 What did Bush say different?
Yes, his border was unstable. USA invaded continents nowhere near their borders. Condemn sadam, condemn USA, be consistent, get respect for your opinions.
Yes he made it HIGHLY unstable with his destabilizing actions. You are actually trying to equate the Unites States with Saddam and his regime
What? First, please explain AUMF... the world is awash in acronyms and I can't keep up. Perpetual wars are due to expansionist regimes... you know... Russia wants Ukraine, China wants Taiwan, ISIS wants to establish its control everywhere. Where have US troops died doing the bidding of Tel Aviv?
Yes Esau, what you say makes 100% sense. Saddam gassed and killed only over 100 thousands Kurds, only attacked Iran and Kuwait, and killed only few hundred thousands of his real or imaginary opponents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein Yes, USA is worse than Saddam. Please tech us more about USA and Saddam!
my Japanese brother and Vietnamese cousin would agree with me. here in China we study history and history also tells us that USA and Europe enslaved Jews for 400 years and offered no reparations.
Iraq was an example of exactly what the "founders" wanted to avoid; a standing military force being misused by an administration with nefarious intentions.
Iraq fully cooperated with inspections. The part where the supposedly did not cooperate with it, was the US trying to get "inspectors" inside the Baath political headquarters and it has nothing to do with inspecting alleged WMD activity. Iraq called out that they were spies. And after a year it all came out the Iraqi's were right about that. The US and UK broke the rules and tried to infiltrate into Saddam's personal space. The US lied about everything, even the part where they said that Iraq kicked out the UN inspectors. They fled because the US told them they were going to be in the middle of a warzone. That pins the blame completely on the US and the UK. And they found nothing when they turned that country upside down.
you keep bringing up Clinton. It's the Washington post and the US admitted it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/unscom2.htm You've been had for 20 years. lol GWB and his henchmen told his lies in speeches to the world at the UN, and than followed through on an illegal war. So the blood is all on the US's hands and particularly on the GOP.
Iraq was exactly what the founders wanted our military to do. What they did with the "Barbary Pirates" is exactly what we did in Iraq.
Not if its intelligence gathering balloons illegally invading US airspace with the coward Biden in office.
At the time, I knew Saddam was all bluster. I spent a lot of time in the ME and I think I know how men with power huff and puff their way around. I was against it from the very start. Even though he was a monster, we had no business going in there. Remember all the talk about nation building? Turning them into nice little democracies, blue fingers, bla bla bla....A lot of innocent people died because GW wanted to avenge his daddy.
Sadaam "blustered" thousands of Kurds to death with Soviet made "LIQUEFIED SOMAN" Sadaam "blustered' hundreds of innocent prisoners to death at Abu Ghraib. Sadaam "blustered" thousands to death in his invasion of Kuwait. (Just a personal anecdote: My I-T (Interpreter-Translator) in Iraq in 2003-4 supported US Forces because his fiance was abducted and killed by Sadaam's sons Uday and Qusay along with about 500 other young women whose bodies were found when we drained a lake near BIAP (Baghdad International Airport). I guess Sadaam's sons "blustered" pretty well too.)
Darn Tootin .. That boy a war criminal .. shoud be put before the hauge - along with Condolezza . and we can dig up Rumsfeld and Cheney .. Goblins
Authorization for Use of Military Force. Theater only, redundant because POTUS already has that power under Article II. And 20 years later after several attempts, the military industrial complex will still not allow congress to end it. Yes, perpetual wars are due to expansionist regimes like the one in Washington DC, and AUMF and GWOT provide perfect cover for that effort. Russia has Donbas and Crimea, as they have had since before the US existed as a political entity. Have you read that they speak Russian in those regions, and have since before the time of Catherine the Great? Ditto Taiwan and China. Any troops that have died in the mideast did so to advance the Israeli notion of Greater Israel. Greater Israel - Wikipedia Are you aware of AIPAC? AIPAC The majority of congress and US politicians are members.
