Again, whatever the intelligence reports said, the Clinton administration didn't stake lives of American troops on them.

.

 

And Saddam expected the same what he thought was weak response from Bush. Bombing. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Depending on whom is in office, the next leader that wants to act like Saddam did for (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE POINT) the length of time that Saddam did, has to have 2nd thoughts on what the US's actual response will be.

And Saddam expected the same what he thought was weak response from Bush. Bombing. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Depending on whom is in office, the next leader that wants to act like Saddam did for (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE POINT) the length of time that Saddam did, has to have 2nd thoughts on what the US's actual response will be.

I disagree. If an anti-war candidate wins on the strength of the argument that the US acted wrongly with regard to Iraq, Bush's resolute action against Saddam will do nothing to strengthen our position in the future. McCain would be seen as a man carrying a big stick. Hillary or Obama will be seen as talkers not likely to back up their rhetoric.

Again, whatever the intelligence reports said, the Clinton administration didn't stake lives of American troops on them.

Afgahanistan, yes. We hit the people that were responsible for 9/11 and hit them hard.

 

Iraq, no. We started a war with an enemy that didn't attack us, very possibly to fulfill a desire that preceded 9/11 and while using 9/11 to justify it.

Well, they didn't hit us in America until well after Clinton was out of office. Gee, if Clinton was such a wimp you would have thought they would have done it while he was still residing in the White House.

 

If Clinton had fullfilled his responsibility, Al Queida would have been being hunted down all over the world after the first bombing of the WTC.

I disagree. If an anti-war candidate wins on the strength of the argument that the US acted wrongly with regard to Iraq, Bush's resolute action against Saddam will do nothing to strengthen our position in the future. McCain would be seen as a man carrying a big stick. Hillary or Obama will be seen as talkers not likely to back up their rhetoric.

 

I wasn't clear with my "depending on who is in office" statement. What you said above is what I meant, so we agree.

I wasn't clear with my "depending on who is in office" statement. What you said above is what I meant, so we agree.

You were clear, I just did not read your post carefully enough. Sorry.

And Saddam expected the same what he thought was weak response from Bush. Bombing. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Depending on whom is in office, the next leader that wants to act like Saddam did for (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE POINT) the length of time that Saddam did, has to have 2nd thoughts on what the US's actual response will be.

 

I'm not even sure if I agree with that point. If Iraq had been the cakewalk that the Bush Administration thought it would be (cost ~ $50billion, in and out in 6 months), I think you would be right. But the U.S. invasion and occupation has lasted 5 years now and is now seen by a solid majority in the U.S. as a mistake. I doubt many potential adversaries would view the U.S. as eager to repeat a pre-emptive war campaign.

If Clinton had fullfilled his responsibility, Al Queida would have been being hunted down all over the world after the first bombing of the WTC.

 

I don't disagree with that statement, however doesn't it make you angry that we gave such a half-hearted effort to hunt down and completely destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

I'm not even sure if I agree with that point. If Iraq had been the cakewalk that the Bush Administration thought it would be (cost ~ $50billion, in and out in 6 months), I think you would be right. But the U.S. invasion and occupation has lasted 5 years now and is now seen by a solid majority in the U.S. as a mistake. I doubt many potential adversaries would view the U.S. as eager to repeat a pre-emptive war campaign.

 

I didn't say that the US would repeat but that the other side would have 2nd thoughts wondering what will be the US response. Saddam indicated he thought it was just going to be bombing because that is what the Clintons did. He found out that it was different.

 

If it is a hawk, they could be more likely to expect a strong response.

If is is a dove, they could be more likely to expect a weaker response like the bombing.

 

We view bombing as a tough response. (at least I do.) A nutjob like Saddam who cares nothing for his citizenry and even his soldiers obviously doesn't.

If Clinton had fullfilled his responsibility, Al Queida would have been being hunted down all over the world after the first bombing of the WTC.

 

It's interesting to me that we have a current leader who is "living up to his responsibility" but can't find, capture or "hunt down" Al Qaida with all the military behind him. How well do you think Clinton could have done in hunting them all over the world unless he too mobilized the entire military to do so?

 

I don't think it's as easy as "hunting them down" when they are scattered in other countries. Even Bush has hunted too hard into Pakistan.

It's interesting to me that we have a current leader who is "living up to his responsibility" but can't find, capture or "hunt down" Al Qaida with all the military behind him. How well do you think Clinton could have done in hunting them all over the world unless he too mobilized the entire military to do so?

 

I don't think it's as easy as "hunting them down" when they are scattered in other countries. Even Bush has hunted too hard into Pakistan.

 

There have been numerous Al Quaida members caught or killed.

 

Did you mean Osama instead?

LN, here's how I felt about it then and how I feel about it now. Our military forces should never be committed to battle unless an overt act has been committed against this nation by the opposing force; or, in order to protect a friendly nation from an aggressor who has committed an overt act against said friendly nation.

 

I don't have to like Iraq, Iran, Russia, the PRP, Venezuela, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, Jintao or Jiabao. But as sovereign nations, I feel they have the same rights as the United States has, and that includes weapon development.

 

I understand your point and I somewhat agree. However, I'd say Iraq is different than the other countries/leaders you listed for the following reasons:

 

a. Iraq had been "ordered" by the UN to open up and fully permit inspectors to confirm that the WMD programs had been shut down and there were no WMDs present. He failed to permit such to freely occur over a long period of time. I don't think that is present with the other countries that you have listed.

 

b. Hussein had proven that he was willing to use WMD's in the past, even against his own people. I don't think that is present with the other leaders you have listed.

 

c. Hussein had sworn to kill Americans and to damage to our national interests. I don't think the other leaders you listed have done the same (with the exception of Chavez).

 

d. In the recent past, Iraq had invaded a key ally of ours and a country that is vitally important to our national interests. I don't think that any of the countries you listed had done so.

 

Thus I think there are legit reasons to differentiate Iraq/Hussein from the countries/leaders who listed.

 

Like I said at the beginning, I generally agree that we should not act until a definite act of aggression has overtly been made against us or an ally, I do however think there are circumstances when we should act before we or an ally is attacked. Where we have intelligence, even conflicting intelligence, that leads us to believe that some one or some country is preparing to do us harm, I think the general rule of waiting gets cast aside, particularly when we give that person or that country numerous opportunities to prove to us that our concerns may be unfounded. When that person or country fails miserably to allay our concerns, then I think we have the right to act. Had we discovered intelligence, even conflicting intelligence, that Japan was intent on attacking Pearl Harbor and we asked Japan to provide us with proof that our intelligence was wrong, do you really think that we should have waited until after Pearl Harbor was bombed before we attacked the Japanese forces? I don't.

It's interesting to me that we have a current leader who is "living up to his responsibility" but can't find, capture or "hunt down" Al Qaida with all the military behind him. How well do you think Clinton could have done in hunting them all over the world unless he too mobilized the entire military to do so?

 

I don't think it's as easy as "hunting them down" when they are scattered in other countries. Even Bush has hunted too hard into Pakistan.

 

Al Queida operatives are being killed every day. How many terrorist activities have been foiled due to INCREASED pressure on defense and intelligence. The military should have been mobilized as needed. Thats the problem, hesitation in doing what needs to be done.

I understand your point and I somewhat agree. However, I'd say Iraq is different than the other countries/leaders you listed for the following reasons:

 

a. Iraq had been "ordered" by the UN to open up and fully permit inspectors to confirm that the WMD programs had been shut down and there were no WMDs present. He failed to permit such to freely occur over a long period of time. I don't think that is present with the other countries that you have listed.

 

b. Hussein had proven that he was willing to use WMD's in the past, even against his own people. I don't think that is present with the other leaders you have listed.

 

c. Hussein had sworn to kill Americans and to damage to our national interests. I don't think the other leaders you listed have done the same (with the exception of Chavez).

 

d. In the recent past, Iraq had invaded a key ally of ours and a country that is vitally important to our national interests. I don't think that any of the countries you listed had done so.

 

Thus I think there are legit reasons to differentiate Iraq/Hussein from the countries/leaders who listed.

 

Like I said at the beginning, I generally agree that we should not act until a definite act of aggression has overtly been made against us or an ally, I do however think there are circumstances when we should act before we or an ally is attacked. Where we have intelligence, even conflicting intelligence, that leads us to believe that some one or some country is preparing to do us harm, I think the general rule of waiting gets cast aside, particularly when we give that person or that country numerous opportunities to prove to us that our concerns may be unfounded. When that person or country fails miserably to allay our concerns, then I think we have the right to act. Had we discovered intelligence, even conflicting intelligence, that Japan was intent on attacking Pearl Harbor and we asked Japan to provide us with proof that our intelligence was wrong, do you really think that we should have waited until after Pearl Harbor was bombed before we attacked the Japanese forces? I don't.

a. I think the UN should be thrown out of the US, so, I kinda blew this one off.

 

b. If he had used them against us, I'd have no problem erasing Iraq from all the maps.

 

c. I know lots of people who trash talk. I'd still wait until they act upon those threats.

 

d. Iraq attacked Kuwait, and we spanked them. We probably didn't do enough at the time, but that goes back to my a. answer.

 

I think when a country is preparing to harm you, you take precautions and prepare yourself to retaliate 10-100 fold. And you let your enemies know that if they take a swing at you, they'll never get up off the floor. Reagan did that with Libya. Clinton made it known that you can sucker punch us anytime you want. W showed the Taliban that they made a bad decision. I think the Afghanistan retaliation was probably enough for Sadaam. Sadaam was a cruel evil man, not a stupid one.

 

As far as Japan goes, without getting windy, we did too little all through the 30's to contain Japan. Sure we allowed our pilots to join the AVG, but it was too little. We would have been better off allying with China and other Asian countries. But since we didn't, we should have made more of an effort to prepare for war. I don't know how we do that without attacking Japan early in 1941. Even when we guessed at an attack on American soil, we didn't know where it was headed: Alaska or Hawaii? Worst yet, is the suggestion that the administration knew more than it said about a Japanese invasion and its desire to keep it quiet in order to give us a political reason to declare war. If thats true, that may be the most treasonous decision of all.

a. I think the UN should be thrown out of the US, so, I kinda blew this one off.

 

b. If he had used them against us, I'd have no problem erasing Iraq from all the maps.

 

c. I know lots of people who trash talk. I'd still wait until they act upon those threats.

 

d. Iraq attacked Kuwait, and we spanked them. We probably didn't do enough at the time, but that goes back to my a. answer.

 

I think when a country is preparing to harm you, you take precautions and prepare yourself to retaliate 10-100 fold. And you let your enemies know that if they take a swing at you, they'll never get up off the floor. Reagan did that with Libya. Clinton made it known that you can sucker punch us anytime you want. W showed the Taliban that they made a bad decision. I think the Afghanistan retaliation was probably enough for Sadaam. Sadaam was a cruel evil man, not a stupid one.

 

As far as Japan goes, without getting windy, we did too little all through the 30's to contain Japan. Sure we allowed our pilots to join the AVG, but it was too little. We would have been better off allying with China and other Asian countries. But since we didn't, we should have made more of an effort to prepare for war. I don't know how we do that without attacking Japan early in 1941. Even when we guessed at an attack on American soil, we didn't know where it was headed: Alaska or Hawaii? Worst yet, is the suggestion that the administration knew more than it said about a Japanese invasion and its desire to keep it quiet in order to give us a political reason to declare war. If thats true, that may be the most treasonous decision of all.

 

Good post. I reject the comparison between Japan/Pearl Harbor and Iraq. To me, it lends far, far more credibility to the threat that Iraq posed to the U.S. than is warranted. It would have been incredibly foolish for Iraq to participate in or enable any attack on the U.S., as it would be for any country. Our military is deadly efficient at fighting well-defined wars against well-defined enemies. If Saddam had chosen to attack us or gave weapons to terrorists to attack us, he might as well have painted a big red bullseye on his rear end and kissed his existence goodbye.

There have been numerous Al Quaida members caught or killed.

 

Did you mean Osama instead?

 

Yes and No. I was answering Camel's statement that said if Clinton had hunted down Al Qaida after WTC '93 then we might not be in this shape.

 

My response was that while we have "killed or capture" many Osama and the network of Al Qaida lives and quite frankly I don't see us any closer to Osama's capture now than when Clinton was in office.

 

I just don't think it's as easy as our current hindsight to believe that if Clinton had bombed, invaded and "hunted down" these guys 9/11 might have been prevented. I'm no Clinton fan but I will just have to disagree with that mind set.