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