OT: Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq

[mars_dup1]

How long has this been going on? Read all about it [url=http://www.sundayherald.com/32185]here.[/url]

[Wow]

1992 - 2000 . EVERTHING was swept under the rug.

[Jotown]

[quote]1992 - 2000 . EVERTHING was swept under the rug. [/quote]Except for the presidents sex life. The republicans were all over that one. Maybe if they would have let Clinton do his job instead of defending himself from the "vast right wing conspiracy", he could have taken more military action without being accused of deflecting attention away from Monica. That is in fact the biggest damage that Monicagate did to America Or maybe Clinton was smart enough to not listen folks like Rumsfeld, who was a good old boy from three previous republican administrations.

[Wow]

[quote] Maybe if they would have let Clinton do his job instead of defending himself from the "vast right wing conspiracy", he could have taken more military action without being accused of deflecting attention away from Monica. That is in fact the biggest damage that Monicagate did to America [/quote]Monica was in 98, what about his first 6 YEARS? (insert excuses). Lets stop about clinton. The war starts today and there are better things to talk about.

[Charlie-brm]

Do you ever actually read what you write? You brought it up, for the xxth nauseating time. [quote] 1992 - 2000 . EVERTHING was swept under the rug. [/quote]

[Rick K.]

I wanna read this letter, not just 'exerpts'. This is interesting! Rick

[Yuri T.]

Gee what a surprise folks. :rolleyes: Rumsfeld, Cheney (oil), Rice (has a tanker named for her), Bush (oil), Wolfowitz etc. etc. Secret meetings with energy companies? These are folks who honestly believe that the best way to go is to create a power base in the Middle East. They believe in US 'supremacy' which others read as 'hegemony' or 'colonialsm'. All about the new US century where we blow off the UN and just go our own way and **** what the rest say. All semantics aside these people prefer to speak with force and action rather than with diplomacy and agreement. Them's just words. http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_kupchin031703.htm

[Yuri T.]

From another enlightening article. ---------------------------------- >From TheWorldPaper Informal summary notes form a conference call with a chief intelligence specialist at Stratfor, a geo-military-political consultancy firm based in Boston, "Regime change is the objective. The US is committed to a major military presence in the area for the foreseeable future. The purpose of the war is to position the US in the heart of the region to be able to bring to bear overwhelming pressure on surrounding states so that they ruthlessly “deal with” the Al Qaeda network in their countries…or else face the US. Ultimately, Pakistan is on the US agenda. India, as a consequence, is going to become a major US ally. China will acquiesce, as will Russia, in return for US recognition of their respective rights to “deal with” “insurgency” as they see fit. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia are the biggest losers...and Iraq. The current international landscape is about to fundamentally change…war will become a permanent feature of the next 5 to 10 years. The backdrop of Stratfor’s analysis: We are re-entering “normality,” and that the 1990s were a period of abnormality. That stock markets have gone up and down during conflicts [Korea, Vietnam] and that war is neither extraordinary in terms of the 20th century, nor is it inherently bad for markets. The Iraqi invasion itself is not about Al Qaeda being in Iraq. Nor is it about oil. The US is committed to a long-term presence in the region. It is about Iraq being the single-most strategically placed country in the Middle-East…having at its borders Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait. The US rationale: To date, the US has always been an outsider when it has come to dealing with issues in the Middle East, and as a direct consequence it has always needed alliances...this will change, definitively, when it becomes the dominant and overwhelming military power in the region. The whole dynamic of the Middle East will shift as a consequence. What is the purpose of the war? The purpose is to redefine the geopolitics of the region, in order to be able to bring direct and unavoidable pressure upon countries who are intentionally, or by default, allowing Al Qaeda to operate. The driving logic is to create a new reality: that it is far worse not to co-operate with the US than it is to ignore Al Qaeda within their own countries, for fear of internal problems. Nevertheless it is a scenario which these countries have recognized is increasingly likely to come to take place. The opposition from Iran and Saudi Arabia has little to with Iraq, and everything to do with the wider implications of a long-term US presence in the Middle East. Is it likely to take place? War is a certainty [according to Stratfor]. The US administration is absolutely committed to going to war. It does not want a UN “government” in place. The immediate upshot of war: Syria will be surrounded by hostile countries [Turkey, US/Iraq, Israel]. US naval dominance will provide overwhelming reach. Saudi Arabia will be surrounded by Yemen, Oman, Kuwait, US/Iraq, Qatar. Iran will be flanked by US-supporting Afghanistan on its East, and in the West by the US/Iraq, Kuwait. Why take this strategy? Because the thinking is that Al Qaeda cannot afford to become a larger organization, because—the theory asserts—the larger it becomes, the less secure it becomes. Structurally highly-secure growth of Al Qaeda is of greater concern to the US. " ----------------------------------------

[mars_dup1]

[quote]Originally posted by Yuri T.: [b]From another enlightening article: What is the purpose of the war? The purpose is to redefine the geopolitics of the region, in order to be able to bring direct and unavoidable pressure upon countries who are intentionally, or by default, allowing Al Qaeda to operate. The opposition from Iran and Saudi Arabia has little to with Iraq, and everything to do with the wider implications of a long-term US presence in the Middle East. Why take this strategy? Because the thinking is that Al Qaeda cannot afford to become a larger organization, because—the theory asserts—the larger it becomes, the less secure it becomes. Structurally highly-secure growth of Al Qaeda is of greater concern to the US. " ----------------------------------------[/b][/quote]And in that sense, Rumsfeld and all the other 'Project for a New American Centrury' members (who quite by coincidence, are all in the Bush Administration), are right! I just wish they would stop lying about it. The US doesn't really care about human rights violations. Sure, it's imperialist thinking, but hey - are you going to wait for Al Qaeda to take over or for Russia and China to make a move?

[Yuri T.]

[quote]Originally posted by mars: [b]And in that sense, Rumsfeld and all the other 'Project for a New American Centrury' members (who quite by coincidence, are all in the Bush Administration), are right! I just wish they would stop lying about it. The US doesn't really care about human rights violations. Sure, it's imperialist thinking, but hey - are you going to wait for Al Qaeda to take over or for Russia and China to make a move?[/b][/quote]I don't know about them being right at all. There are lessons in history, the Roman empire comes to mind. With our forces spread so thin and the current atmosphere of the U.S. making more new enemies than freinds this could all blow up in a bad way. If Rumsfeld and Bush hadn't totally bungled the diplomatic side of things we could have a much stronger coalition in a month or two. But the administrations arrogant dismissals since day one of any international treaties and basic disregard of other nations, especially our allies, has set the US reputation back by decades and we are far far weaker for it. I personally blame Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney for this, they have all the tact and diplomacy of a fart in an elevator.

[mars_dup1]

[quote]Originally posted by Yuri T.: [b] If Rumsfeld and Bush hadn't totally bungled the diplomatic side of things we could have a much stronger coalition in a month or two.[/b][/quote]They didn't [i]want[/i] a coalition. From the original article: [quote] DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a 'hazard' to 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil'. In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America [i]go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'.[/i] [/quote](Emphasis mine)

[mars_dup1]

[quote]Originally posted by Rick Kreuzer: [b]I wanna read this letter, not just 'exerpts'. This is interesting! Rick[/b][/quote]Here ya go... [url=http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm]PNAC Letter to Clinton[/url]

[GZsound]

It seems like some of you are actually starting to understand what is going on in the middle east. The area has been in turmoil for decades. America has tried many different forms of diplomacy over the years and has also tried force. The nine day war 55 years ago and all the other battles ever since have done nothing to calm the area. The Muslims hate the Jews. The Kurds hate the Shiites, etc. on and on for many years. Our leaders, both Democrat and Republican, have tried to bring peace to the region to no avail. To blame our current situation on Bush 1, Clinton, or our current administration is stupid. Carter tried, Reagan tried, Eisenhower tried, Kennedy tried....all failed. Remember Nassar and Saddat? I think a history lesson of the difficulties in the middle east would help some of you get off the idea that our current administration has caused all these problems. It is a very complicated region with dictators, tribal leaders, terrorist groups and multi diverse religious groups. The only thing we have never tried is working to place a democratic government in one of the nations. We seem to be having success in Afghanastan with the democratic government there. Someone needs to make an effort to bring some stability to the region and it is obvious the Saudi's, the Egyptians, the Jordanians are not going to do anything to stop the terrorists and the brutal dictatorships. I firmly believe the "can't we all just get along" Carteresque policies will only get more innocent civilians killed. Think of it as putting a large police force right in the heart of the drug infested part of town. Then getting the neighbors involved in cleaning up their own area with the police help. Eventually, the police move away and the neighbors can reclaim their neighborhood. It has worked here and if done properly can be done over there. Instead of constant bashing..maybe some of you could make some suggestions or offer support. The constant, shrill personal attacks do nothing to help solve the problem. At least we have an administration that is willing to risk their political careers to do what they think is right. Playing "kick the can" with the problem like Clinton did only leads to more problems..like 9/11. And Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, etc. did very little to resolve the problem. Sitting in a circle singing protest songs will certainly not help either. How about an intelligent discussion of ways to solve some of these problems? North Korea anybody? Iran? Columbia?

[Yuri T.]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]It seems like some of you are actually starting to understand what is going on in the middle east. The area has been in turmoil for decades. [/b][/quote]Not for nothing but 'starting to understand'? That comes of as a just bit condescending pardner so perhaps the bashing is a double edged sword? There is a hell of a lot of history to be studied and I've been trying to keep up for a while. Plus understanding does not necessarily include agreement either. This is the same course that was taken by the Roman Empire and the British Empire in many ways. Eventually the resources were overextended and the tax burden necessary to support the increasing size of the military became to high for the public to bear. King George had to give up on the Colonies for these reasons. And let's not really pretend that taxes don't have to go up. The entire paper about raising the military to new levels gives the first Bush administration as an example. This was the 'No new taxes" president who had one of the largest tax increases in history to pay for the military spending. So one might say 'but we're not an empire'. What does Pax Americana mean to you?

[Rick K.]

[quote]Originally posted by mars: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Rick Kreuzer: [b]I wanna read this letter, not just 'exerpts'. This is interesting! Rick[/b][/quote]Here ya go... [url=http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm]PNAC Letter to Clinton[/url] [/b][/quote]Thanks Mars for that link!! I read this and wonder why didn't we act sooner?? We've known for 5 years that Saddam is a threat and we're just now acting!! That IS scary! The fact that we knew for the last 5 years that we weren't able to curtail Saddams WMD programs, and we're just now getting around to dealing with him. What a rogue! 5 years. I'd love to post this letter, but y'all can look it up yourself. I highly recommend it. I'm looking forward to your interpretations of it. I guess that the opening sentence impacted me severly. [quote][b] [i]We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.[/i] [/b][/quote]Rick

[Botch.]

Yuri T, thanks for posting that article. :thu:

[Jotown]

The Saudi's are the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the region,(15 of the WTC terrorists were Saudi's) yet they are Bush's buddies, and business partners. So we let them be. I wouldn't have listened to Rumsfeld either, or any of Nixon's boys for that matter.

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: I wouldn't have listened to Rumsfeld either, or any of Nixon's boys for that matter.[/quote]Just out of curiosity... ...who WOULD you listen to...besides Jacques Chirac?

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by miroslav: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: I wouldn't have listened to Rumsfeld either, or any of Nixon's boys for that matter.[/quote]Just out of curiosity... ...who WOULD you listen to...besides Jacques Chirac?[/b][/quote]Just out of curiosity....What brand of crack do you smoke? I have never quoted, or used Mr. Chirac's name on these forums, nor have I supported Frances position. Your post illustrates your typical conservative republican reaction to everything you do not like. You did not add anything here, you use mis-information to distract from other peoples opinion. And then you wonder with those tactics, why nobody takes you seriously.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b] The Muslims hate the Jews. The Kurds hate the Shiites, etc. on and on for many years. Our leaders, both Democrat and Republican, have tried to bring peace to the region to no avail. [/b][/quote]Well, gee, we certainly don't want to make any sweeping generalities, do we. Muslims and Jews work hand in hand in many parts of the world, as so Muslims and Hindus, Catholics and Protestants, Blacks and Whites, and every other conceivable combination. The fact is that it's the fringe elements who perpetuate the problems. Fringe elements and uninformed sheep (like a significant portion of the American population who think that TV news is really new) and opportunist governments. Not Jews vs. Muslims, etc. Your haste to classify shows the fallacy of your logic. [quote][b]To blame our current situation on Bush 1, Clinton, or our current administration is stupid. Carter tried, Reagan tried, Eisenhower tried, Kennedy tried....all failed. Remember Nassar and Saddat? I think a history lesson of the difficulties in the middle east would help some of you get off the idea that our current administration has caused all these problems. It is a very complicated region with dictators, tribal leaders, terrorist groups and multi diverse religious groups.[/b][/quote]Excuse me, but the modern Middle East is a result of political lines drawn by the US, Britain, and France at the end of WWII, lines drawn to make is easier to rape the region and steal its natural resources. Leaders were overthrown and puppets were put up in their places. How can you possibly lecture us about Middle Eastern history without addressing these very salient FACTS about our longstanding, largely negative influence in the region? [quote][b]The only thing we have never tried is working to place a democratic government in one of the nations.[/b][/quote]Yes, because dictators like Nassar and the Shah of Iran are our specialty. [quote][b]We seem to be having success in Afghanastan with the democratic government there.[/b][/quote]A house of cards, ready to implode at any moment. An Afghan leader or official is assassinated every month. [qtuoe][b]Someone needs to make an effort to bring some stability to the region and it is obvious the Saudi's, the Egyptians, the Jordanians are not going to do anything to stop the terrorists and the brutal dictatorships.[/b][/quote] Bullshit. Our intervention is what elevated the dictators and despots to power, including Mssrs. Sharon and Saddam, despots in the truest sense of the word. [quote][b]I firmly believe the "can't we all just get along" Carteresque policies will only get more innocent civilians killed.[/b][/quote]That was Rodney King. Carter said, "Life is not fair." Big difference. [quote][b]Think of it as putting a large police force right in the heart of the drug infested part of town. Then getting the neighbors involved in cleaning up their own area with the police help. Eventually, the police move away and the neighbors can reclaim their neighborhood. It has worked here and if done properly can be done over there.[/b][/quote]Drug infested, eh? What nation consumes more drugs than any other? The U.S. of A. Perhaps we need international forces to invade us and clean up our drug problem. [quote][b]Instead of constant bashing..maybe some of you could make some suggestions or offer support.[/b][/quote]We have. Let the UN and the inspectors handle it as we asked them to last fall. That was obviously a false request. Bush had no intention of letting the inspectors finish their work. If it hadn't been for Powell's intervention, the Bush war chest would have avoided the UN entirely. [quote][b]The constant, shrill personal attacks do nothing to help solve the problem.[/b][/quote]How about the administration's (and conservatives') personal attacks on the French and Russians? How has that helped to advance the cause of diplomacy. [quote][b]At least we have an administration that is willing to risk their political careers to do what they think is right. [/b][/quote]We have an administration willing to resort to barbarism instead of following a carefully considered internationally sanctioned approach that would achieve reasonable ends without massive loss of life? [quote][b]Playing "kick the can" with the problem like Clinton did only leads to more problems..like 9/11.[/b][/quote]Fascinating. You admonish people for accusing Bush of starting a war that he's about to start, but you want us to believe that President Clinton was responsible for 9/11. Was LSD used in arriving at this conclusion? [quote][b]And Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, etc. did very little to resolve the problem. Sitting in a circle singing protest songs will certainly not help either. [/b][/quote]Protests might convince politicians that war is politically unpopular. The only hope we have is to get Bush out of office ASAP. Otherwise, he's painting a big target on our backs and inspiring desperate men to join al qaeda. [quote][b]How about an intelligent discussion of ways to solve some of these problems? North Korea anybody? Iran? Columbia?[/b][/quote]We have suggested ways to solve the problems. Unfortunately, if an idea doesn't involve invading and destroying a country, our President and the right wing fringe dismiss the suggestion as unworkable. The UN had a plan in place to disarm Iraq. Adolph Bush ran over that plan with heavy artillery before the inspectors had a chance to barely BEGIN their mission, let alone FINISH it.

[mars_dup1]

I think some people are missing the point. I'm not blaming Clinton, but rather asking you to consider the frankly staggering implications of the fact that a group of right-wing neo-conservatives planned this war a [i]long[/i] time ago. It is also part of a very ambitious plan to seek an almost "Imperial" role for America. Ten out of those 18 signatories are now members of the Bush administration. I'm also asking you to consider the equally-staggering idea that they may be right! Maybe this [i]is[/i] the way it's supposed to be - maybe that's why empires have always existed, risen and fallen. However, it is also quite chilling to hear that on September 12th, Rumsfeld was already talking about invading Iraq. And it is even [i]more[/i] chilling that in 2000, the PNAC felt that a shift in the US' mideast policy would happen very slowly unles there was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." [url=http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html]ABC story.[/url] I'm not saying that they were behind 9/11, but that it played right into their hands. Americans need to look very carefully into this influential group and the bright future they have planned for America and the rest of the world. Today Iraq, tomorrow?????

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [quote]Originally posted by miroslav: [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: I wouldn't have listened to Rumsfeld either, or any of Nixon's boys for that matter.[/quote]Just out of curiosity... ...who WOULD you listen to...besides Jacques Chirac?[/quote]Just out of curiosity....What brand of crack do you smoke? I have never quoted, or used Mr. Chirac's name on these forums, nor have I supported Frances position. Your post illustrates your typical conservative republican reaction to everything you do not like. You did not add anything here, you use mis-information to distract from other peoples opinion. And then you wonder with those tactics, why nobody takes you seriously.[/quote]Instead of attacking me with wild assumptions about my "typical conservative republican reaction"...and making unsubstantiated, matter-of-fact statements by saying “nobody takes you seriously”…and also bringing up your peculiar interests about what brand of crack I smoke (ahhh…none)... ...why don't you just answer my very simple question? You shit all over Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration...and you even go back 30 years to bring Nixon into it...which only proves that YOU have the “typical liberal, democrat reactions to everything you do not like”. So…it's only fair to ask...who WOULD you listen to? As far as me saying "besides Jacques Chirac"... I never said that YOU supported him, or quoted him, or used his name on these forums... ...I was just trying to suggest that a lot of other people ARE listening more to him than to Bush...so that's why I said, "besides Jacques Chirac". In other words...I wanted to remove him from the current list of choices, made by many. So, now that we got that useless exchange out of the way...back to my question… …who WOULD you listen to?

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [quote]Originally posted by GZsound: Instead of constant bashing..maybe some of you could make some suggestions or offer support.[/quote]We have. Let the UN and the inspectors handle it as we asked them to last fall. That was obviously a false request. Bush had no intention of letting the inspectors finish their work. If it hadn't been for Powell's intervention, the Bush war chest would have avoided the UN entirely.[/quote]Dan, With all due respect...you are wrong...well, maybe a bit misinformed and/or misguided here. The Inspectors have been digging in the sand for quite some time...well before this current round. It was under Clinton that the inspections FAILED...and the inspectors were ultimately kicked out of Iraq by Saddam…and Clinton looked the other way. It's under Bush that the inspectors went back in, and for the last few months, they have been inspecting, and have not been able to really prove much in either direction...because Saddam is a master fake-out artist. Blix has been faked out by Saddam in the past round...(that's a proven fact)...so it's really hard to judge how accurate or proactive his team was this time around. As far as Bush's War Chest avoiding the UN...ahhhhh …Clinton NEVER EVEN BOTHERED TO TRY going to the UN when he bombed the shit out of Serbia... ...because the UN was clearly against it...France was clearly against it...Russia was clearly against it... ...so Clinton was more guilty of circumventing the UN than Bush is. Bush tired...and tried...and tried...but because of ONE COUNTRY - France - saying no matter what type of new resolution was brought to the table they would VETO it without even considering it... ...Bush realized that he was wasting his time with the UN…(or should I say France).

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by miroslav: [b] With all due respect...you are wrong...well, maybe a bit misinformed and/or misguided here.[/b][/quote]Thanks for that show of respect. Why do I feel like Rodney? :D [quote][b]The Inspectors have been digging in the sand for quite some time...well before this current round. It was under Clinton that the inspections FAILED...and the inspectors were ultimately kicked out of Iraq by Saddam…and Clinton looked the other way.[/b][/quote]Let's take a close look at that phrase, "The inspectors under Clinton." Were the inspectors sent by the United States? No. They were sent by the UN. Was Mr. Clinton the head of the UN? No. So, why would you imply that the inspectors were "UNDER" Mr. Clinton. He had no repsonsibility for their operation or their charter. Intelligent, capable people run the UN. If they failed to do their job, that's not Mr. Clinton's fault. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, has such a distinct disregard for the UN that he will do anything in his power to circumvent it. The inspectors have a charge to do a job. Mr. Bush supposedly agreed to have this job carried out. It was going along fairly smoothly, and Mr. Blix seemed generally satisfied with the progress. But Mr. Bush was impatient. Mr. Bush wanted to blow the country to hell before summertime, so he pushed the ludicrous and arbitrary 3/17 deadline that he pulled out of his ass. Some countries scratched their heads and said, "Hey, Bush, we thought that you agreed to inspections. You can't push an arbitrary deadline while the inspections are still going on. Let the inspectors work." And of course, these countries are now deemed by stubborn, hard headed, ultranationalists as "traitors" and "ungrateful." Bush dismissed the entire inspection process before it had time to expose the lies upon which his policy is based. Now he will blow the country to kingdom come and invent whatever evidence he wants to plant there to convince the world that his actions were justified. [quote][b]As far as Bush's War Chest avoiding the UN...ahhhhh …Clinton NEVER EVEN BOTHERED TO TRY going to the UN when he bombed the shit out of Serbia... ...because the UN was clearly against it...France was clearly against it...Russia was clearly against it... ...so Clinton was more guilty of circumventing the UN than Bush is.[/b][/quote]That's a vastly different situation, a civil war, rampant genocide. If Mr. Clinton had not intervened, Bosnia would have been the next Rwanda. Action had to be taken quickly to stop the bloodshed. No such civil war or genocide is currently going on in Iraq. Bush's impatience is the only driving factor for advancing the deadline. [quote][b]Bush tired...and tried...and tried...but because of ONE COUNTRY - France - saying no matter what type of new resolution was brought to the table they would VETO it without even considering it... ...Bush realized that he was wasting his time with the UN…(or should I say France).[/b][/quote]Bullshit. If Bush had any interest in diplomacy, he would be working with the UN. The Bush Administration is using 9/11 as an excuse to invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to DO with 9/11 and that has not and does not support or harbor al qaeda operatives (except in the Kurdish region which WE protect. Saddam would have rooted out the al qaeda bastards and KILLED them in horrible ways, because he would have recognized them as a threat to HIM, a leader of a secular Arab government.) Bush shot a load in his pants over a year ago when he named his axis of evil on TV. What a stupid thing to do! If there really WERE a legitimate reason to invade Iraq (there may be, I'm not disputing that it's possible), WHY did Bush ANNOUNCE to Saddam that we were COMING? I feel sorry for the servicemen who will lose their lives because President Earpp likes to flap his gums. Loose lips sink ships. And not this 48 hour nonsense. Why not just call Bagdhad and send them the battle plan? Bush is a total disgrace as a Commander in Chief. This is modern warfare, not the OK Corral. Kuwait was liberated because the plans were kept secret. WWII was won because of the secrets that were kept (and cracked). President Roosevelt didn't announce D-Day in 48 hours over broadcasts that Hitler could hear. Bush's bravado will cost American soldiers their lives, and I resent that deeply.

[Turd Polisher]

[quote]Originally posted by miroslav: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [quote]Originally posted by GZsound: Instead of constant bashing..maybe some of you could make some suggestions or offer support.[/quote]We have. Let the UN and the inspectors handle it as we asked them to last fall. That was obviously a false request. Bush had no intention of letting the inspectors finish their work. If it hadn't been for Powell's intervention, the Bush war chest would have avoided the UN entirely.[/quote]Dan, With all due respect...you are wrong...well, maybe a bit misinformed and/or misguided here. The Inspectors have been digging in the sand for quite some time...well before this current round. It was under Clinton that the inspections FAILED...and the inspectors were ultimately kicked out of Iraq by Saddam…and Clinton looked the other way. It's under Bush that the inspectors went back in, and for the last few months, they have been inspecting, and have not been able to really prove much in either direction...because Saddam is a master fake-out artist. Blix has been faked out by Saddam in the past round...(that's a proven fact)...so it's really hard to judge how accurate or proactive his team was this time around. As far as Bush's War Chest avoiding the UN...ahhhhh …Clinton NEVER EVEN BOTHERED TO TRY going to the UN when he bombed the shit out of Serbia... ...because the UN was clearly against it...France was clearly against it...Russia was clearly against it... ...so Clinton was more guilty of circumventing the UN than Bush is. Bush tired...and tried...and tried...but because of ONE COUNTRY - France - saying no matter what type of new resolution was brought to the table they would VETO it without even considering it... ...Bush realized that he was wasting his time with the UN…(or should I say France).[/b][/quote]Miroslav, with all due respect, you have your shit all fucked up. NATO [i]was[/i] in Kosovo. France was [i]in[/i] Kosovo. Germany was [i]in[/i] Kosovo. You obviously have little understanding of those events. And Clinton had the UN in place to begin the peacekeeping and reconstruction. When Saddam booted the inspectors, Clinton [i]bombed[/i] the place. Maybe you forgot. Not one country but [i]3[/i] planned on vetoing a document authorizing war in Iraq- France, China, Russia. In addition, the US didn't even come close to getting a majority in the security council, never mind among the veto-bearing members. That's why after promising a vote, Bush backed down after realizing how humiliating it would be that he had [i]completely failed as a diplomat.[/i] You can take pleasure in getting the war and bloodshed that you want, but don't try to rewrite history. Your post was full of inaccuracies.

[Jotown]

Everyone should read the story that mars posted. I am re-posting the link. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html Again, it is these kinds of things that make the rest of the world look at the Bush administration for what it is; A small clique of conservative thinkers who are really running the show behind the scenes. That is why there is so much opposition to the war abroad. Not blind USA bashing, but reasonable doubt. How could anyone read the Rumsfeld letter, see the signatures, and then the Nightline story, and not shake their heads in disgust. What is so hard to understand here?

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: Intelligent, capable people run the UN. If they failed to do their job, that's not Mr. Clinton's fault. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, has such a distinct disregard for the UN that he will do anything in his power to circumvent it. The inspectors have a charge to do a job. Mr. Bush supposedly agreed to have this job carried out. It was going along fairly smoothly, and Mr. Blix seemed generally satisfied with the progress.[/quote]Here...in one paragraph...you are removing ALL responsibility for Iraq inspections from the Clinton Administration for the entire 8 years they were in power...and at the same time dumping all the blame on Bush for not allowing inspectors to do their job...but yet, they have been there for the last few months doing it. I’m just saying that if Clinton HAD been more forcefull and demanding about continuing inspections…then we may not have ever gotten to this point. And Blix was not "generaslly satisified" ...he was actually quite clear that Iraq could/should be complying much more than it was...something that should have been doing all throughout the Clinton years...and now when Bush puts the pressure on Iraq to come clean...you and others blame Bush…??? Whatever... :rolleyes: [quote]Bush dismissed the entire inspection process before it had time to expose the lies upon which his policy is based. Now he will blow the country to kingdom come and invent whatever evidence he wants to plant there to convince the world that his actions were justified.[/quote]This is an odd statement that proves you already have made up your mind about what will happen after we go in. So basically, after we go in and expose all of Saddam's lies about WMDs...(and his funky financial deals with France)...you will then say that it was all a set-up by the USA...that we planted the WMD evidence...??? Please Dan...don't fall so deeply into a conspiracy theory mentality. It would be almost impossible for the USA to plant that much evidence in Iraq. I think you and many others will have egg on your face once the truth comes out...of course, many of you will undoubtedly never be convinced no matter what type of proof is offered up... …why is that? [quote]WHY did Bush ANNOUNCE to Saddam that we were COMING? I feel sorry for the servicemen who will lose their lives because President Earpp likes to flap his gums. Loose lips sink ships. And not this 48 hour nonsense. Why not just call Bagdhad and send them the battle plan?[/quote]Oh come on Dan...we've been building up to this for months...everyone new that war was a very good possibility...Bush has NOT given Saddam our battle plans...he is just giving HIM 48 hours to leave...but that does not mean that precisely in 48 hours we will attack. And most people in our government and our military (on both sides of the political fence) feel that we will roll through Iraq even easier and faster than the first time, with minimal casualties. Already there are rumors that Azis has fled the country, and that some Iraqi soldiers are giving themselves up…before we even start!!! Relax a bit and let this thing play itself out a little...and I am confident that you and most of the world will see that Saddam was a very serious threat...just waiting to pop. Oh…and I was sincere when I said "with all due respect"...cuz' even though we may disagree, our exchanges up to now have never been "nasty" (like with some other people around here)...so I'd like to keep it that way. :thu:

[miroslav]

[quote]Originally posted by Butt Rifler: Miroslav, with all due respect, you have your shit all fucked up. NATO [i]was[/i] in Kosovo. France was [i]in[/i] Kosovo. Germany was [i]in[/i] Kosovo. You obviously have little understanding of those events. And Clinton had the UN in place to begin the peacekeeping and reconstruction.[/quote]With all due respect it’s your shit that’s fucked up...please don't twist things around to suit your argument. :rolleyes: I was responding to Dan South's comments about the USA going to the [b]United Nations[/b] for approval. When Clinton bombed Serbia...he NEVER even consideretd going to go to the UN...and even though our NATO alies worked with us...in the UN Security Council France and Russia WERE opposed to our bombing of Serbia. So...YOU...obviously have little understanding of those events. NATO does not = United Nations So for anyone screaming about UN approval... …I was just making a point that Bush at least made SEVERAL attempts to work with the UN, but really, it was only FRANCE that stood in the way, if they had gone along, we would have had a majority, and the others would not have vetoed anything...that's the reality of it....but you can ignore it if it makes your argument easier. Clinton just avoided the UN altogether when he wanted to bomb Serbia...regardless if the bombing was "justified"...if the UN approval means soooooooo much to some of you now...then it should have meant as much then. Those are DOUBLE STANDARDS. :( [quote]You can take pleasure in getting the war and bloodshed that you want, but don't try to rewrite history. Your post was full of inaccuracies.[/quote]Once again...a stupid statement is made. :bor: It's funny...I, and much of the world, agree that Saddam is a murder, a tyrant, a threat to the stability of the region, and someone that has performed genocide. By the way...these are all the same crimes that the idiot Milosevich is guilty of. BUT...because I and others feel that we SHOULD go in and remove Saddam...we are painted as "bloodthirsty" and accused of taking "pleasure in war". And yet...you and others that wanted the same thing done with Milosevich in Serbia (WITHOUT UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL)…seem to consider yourselves anti-war pacifists. Again…those are DOUBLE STANDARDS. :( If you just want to attack members with false accusations and inaccuracies just because they don’t agree with your line of thinking…please leave me out of it… …with all due respect.

[miroslav]

Jotown... ...your still bashing Rumsfeld, but you still haven't said who you WOULD listen to. Criticism is OK...but it's only fair that you offer up your alternatives... ...that way we can critique them, just like you critique Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration… …don’t you agree? :p