wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:16:38 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:23:49 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far better
policy than occupation.

The problem with that is it accomplishes nothing and alienates
everyone, including people who should be our allies.
By the end of the "bomb them from orbit" Clinton administration we had
lost the respect of most of the world. That is why the Iraq sanctions
were failing.


Again with the revisionist history lesson?? Clinton was hugely popular
both
here and abroad. He remains so. It's Bush who lost the world's respect for
the US.
Perhaps I need to clarify, Clinton was popular but his Iraq policy was
roundly rebuked. There were protesters in the street all over Europe.
Most of the EU was defying the embargo.


His containment policy worked pretty well, although it was starting to
weaken toward the end of his second term. It was a heck of a lot better than
what came next though.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:35:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far
better
policy than occupation.

The problem with that is it accomplishes nothing and alienates
everyone, including people who should be our allies.
By the end of the "bomb them from orbit" Clinton administration we had
lost the respect of most of the world. That is why the Iraq sanctions
were failing.


Again with the revisionist history lesson?? Clinton was hugely popular
both
here and abroad. He remains so. It's Bush who lost the world's respect
for
the US.
Perhaps I need to clarify, Clinton was popular but his Iraq policy was
roundly rebuked. There were protesters in the street all over Europe.
Most of the EU was defying the embargo.


His containment policy worked pretty well, although it was starting to
weaken toward the end of his second term. It was a heck of a lot better
than
what came next though.

You are admitting the "containment" strategy was failing, thanks for
being honest. The reality is, when the EU abandoned the embargo and
Saddam threw out the inspectors, the containment was more rhetoric
than reality.
What would your next step going to be if we didn't put boots on the
ground there? Basically it was either getting out or going in.
We were running out of excuses to keep bombing Iraqi civilians in the
name of saving the Kurds and the coup we wanted out of them wasn't
going to happen.



I'm admitting no such thing. I said "weakening," which means it could have
been strenthened if Bush has the desire to try. Saddam also let the
inspectors back in, but that wasn't good enough for warmonger Bush.

My next step? I wasn't the president, and there was no threat to the US.
Israel certainly could and can take care of itself. He wasn't invading
anyone.

Yet again, you're revising history. Bush said nothing about the poor Iraqi
people until the WMD bs wouldn't float any more. The Kurds has a very secure
area with Saddam contained. He did nothing to them leading up to the
invasion. He gassed them in 1988...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190446,00.html.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 22:11:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:35:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far
better
policy than occupation.

The problem with that is it accomplishes nothing and alienates
everyone, including people who should be our allies.
By the end of the "bomb them from orbit" Clinton administration we
had
lost the respect of most of the world. That is why the Iraq
sanctions
were failing.


Again with the revisionist history lesson?? Clinton was hugely popular
both
here and abroad. He remains so. It's Bush who lost the world's respect
for
the US.
Perhaps I need to clarify, Clinton was popular but his Iraq policy was
roundly rebuked. There were protesters in the street all over Europe.
Most of the EU was defying the embargo.


His containment policy worked pretty well, although it was starting to
weaken toward the end of his second term. It was a heck of a lot better
than
what came next though.

You are admitting the "containment" strategy was failing, thanks for
being honest. The reality is, when the EU abandoned the embargo and
Saddam threw out the inspectors, the containment was more rhetoric
than reality.
What would your next step going to be if we didn't put boots on the
ground there? Basically it was either getting out or going in.
We were running out of excuses to keep bombing Iraqi civilians in the
name of saving the Kurds and the coup we wanted out of them wasn't
going to happen.



I'm admitting no such thing. I said "weakening," which means it could have
been strenthened if Bush has the desire to try. Saddam also let the
inspectors back in, but that wasn't good enough for warmonger Bush.

My next step? I wasn't the president, and there was no threat to the US.
Israel certainly could and can take care of itself. He wasn't invading
anyone.

Yet again, you're revising history. Bush said nothing about the poor Iraqi
people until the WMD bs wouldn't float any more. The Kurds has a very
secure
area with Saddam contained. He did nothing to them leading up to the
invasion. He gassed them in 1988...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190446,00.html.

Clinton was the one who said he was saving the Kurds, that was the
excuse for the no fly zones.

I said, "with Saddam contained." Thus Clinton was ensuring the Kurds'
continued security.

I am not here to defend Bush, he was wrong. My question is why didn't
Clinton get us out of there? Saddam was clearly slipping away from
containment and without an effective embargo we really didn't have any
way to contain him without more military action.

Because the containment was still working. It's unclear if other means could
be used to continue to thwart Saddam's greater designs on the region. We
didn't get a chance to try ala Bush.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:11:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

My next step? I wasn't the president, and there was no threat to the US.
Israel certainly could and can take care of itself. He wasn't invading
anyone.

Yet again, you're revising history. Bush said nothing about the poor
Iraqi
people until the WMD bs wouldn't float any more. The Kurds has a very
secure
area with Saddam contained. He did nothing to them leading up to the
invasion. He gassed them in 1988...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190446,00.html.

Clinton was the one who said he was saving the Kurds, that was the
excuse for the no fly zones.

I said, "with Saddam contained." Thus Clinton was ensuring the Kurds'
continued security.

The no fly zones were unsustainable. At a certain point we were still
going to have to put boots on the ground or abandon the project.
Saddam was slipping out of the containment in 2000, before Bush took
office. Read a little about diversions from the oil for food program.
Clinton ignored it because it was an election year. The next guy had a
decision to make, either enforce the UN resolutions or get out.
I think Bush made the wrong choice but having Saddam rebuilding his
army was troubling too. We had lost the embargo by then and in
November of 2000 Iraq rejected any more inspections.

You don't know this. It's a guess and by no means a sure thing. This is the
same type of rationale that Bush used... preemption.

Bush lied to us and to the world. "Made the wrong choice" isn't what
happened. He deliberately mislead. There's a big difference.

The inspectors were allowed back in and were doing their work.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html

I am not here to defend Bush, he was wrong. My question is why didn't
Clinton get us out of there? Saddam was clearly slipping away from
containment and without an effective embargo we really didn't have any
way to contain him without more military action.

Because the containment was still working. It's unclear if other means
could
be used to continue to thwart Saddam's greater designs on the region. We
didn't get a chance to try ala Bush.

Define "working". We were bombing them at least once a week because
they were shooting at UN planes and oil money was flowing into his
country at close to pre-war levels. He was using that money to rebuild
his military.

So what? We should not be in the business of preemption without a direct
threat to _us_ or our allies. No such threat existed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:58:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:11:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

My next step? I wasn't the president, and there was no threat to the
US.
Israel certainly could and can take care of itself. He wasn't invading
anyone.

Yet again, you're revising history. Bush said nothing about the poor
Iraqi
people until the WMD bs wouldn't float any more. The Kurds has a very
secure
area with Saddam contained. He did nothing to them leading up to the
invasion. He gassed them in 1988...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190446,00.html.

Clinton was the one who said he was saving the Kurds, that was the
excuse for the no fly zones.

I said, "with Saddam contained." Thus Clinton was ensuring the Kurds'
continued security.

The no fly zones were unsustainable. At a certain point we were still
going to have to put boots on the ground or abandon the project.
Saddam was slipping out of the containment in 2000, before Bush took
office. Read a little about diversions from the oil for food program.
Clinton ignored it because it was an election year. The next guy had a
decision to make, either enforce the UN resolutions or get out.
I think Bush made the wrong choice but having Saddam rebuilding his
army was troubling too. We had lost the embargo by then and in
November of 2000 Iraq rejected any more inspections.

You don't know this. It's a guess and by no means a sure thing. This is
the
same type of rationale that Bush used... preemption.

Bush lied to us and to the world. "Made the wrong choice" isn't what
happened. He deliberately mislead. There's a big difference.

The inspectors were allowed back in and were doing their work.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html
\
Hans Blix would disagree with you

?? They were allowed back in as per the timeline I gave you.

I am not here to defend Bush, he was wrong. My question is why didn't
Clinton get us out of there? Saddam was clearly slipping away from
containment and without an effective embargo we really didn't have any
way to contain him without more military action.

Because the containment was still working. It's unclear if other means
could
be used to continue to thwart Saddam's greater designs on the region. We
didn't get a chance to try ala Bush.

Define "working". We were bombing them at least once a week because
they were shooting at UN planes and oil money was flowing into his
country at close to pre-war levels. He was using that money to rebuild
his military.

So what? We should not be in the business of preemption without a direct
threat to _us_ or our allies. No such threat existed.

Again you are trying to make me a fan of the Bush war and that is not
true at all. I am also against the Clinton war.
We had no excuse to be there in the first place if Saddam was not a
threat. I still say he threatened Israel and that is the real reason
we were there. I agree he never threatened the US.

No I'm not. You're just not reporting what happened accurately.

You can have it both ways. He was a threat to the region and perhaps to us,
thus we were containing him. He wasn't a threat to us short term, thus we
had no business invading. Israel already destroyed his reactor. They had
nothing to do with us invading. They can take care of themselves. You're
just making things up with the "Israel was the real reason" crap. If any
reason was real, it was for oil. It's called the Great Game and it's been
going on a long time.

http://www.newgreatgame.com/preface.htm


--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:11:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Because the containment was still working. It's unclear if other means
could
be used to continue to thwart Saddam's greater designs on the region. We
didn't get a chance to try ala Bush.

--


This is "working"?
Sure, if you ignore the lives of the people on the ground.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/ju...iraq-j05.shtml


You sure seem to care a lot about the Iraqis at the expense of us...

Here's the time line again, in case you missed it.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html


--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:11:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Because the containment was still working. It's unclear if other means
could
be used to continue to thwart Saddam's greater designs on the region. We
didn't get a chance to try ala Bush.

--

This is "working"?
Sure, if you ignore the lives of the people on the ground.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/ju...iraq-j05.shtml


You sure seem to care a lot about the Iraqis at the expense of us...

Here's the time line again, in case you missed it.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html


We must be careful not to reveal our ("me me me", "I've got mine, ****
you") attitude.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet,or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.