Saddam's Letter

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Eagler:
...to slick who proceeded fumble & punt for the next 8 years...

 Do not forget "cut CIA operations, FBI buget, let NSA go to ruin and reduce US ground troops by 80 percent".

 miko

[StSanta]

Bush Sr started the whole deal, credit where credit is due.

[Hangtime]

Careful Santa... can't annoy the republicans with the facts; they may get testy; and call yah a Nazi.

 

[miko2d]

Originally posted by StSanta:
Bush Sr started the whole deal, credit where credit is due.

 That is true. He stupidly took our obligations seriously. Probably entered into them too, unless some flunky did it while Reagan was sleeping.

 Not sure though if he would have continued to stay there and piss them off further if he got re-elected. After all he would not have had to prove that he was a tough guy or distract public from his blow-jobs.

 Good thing Clinton was elected after Gulf war and not right after US defeated Russia in cold war. Instead of becoming friends with them - like we could have been with Irak (after all the same communist elite stayed in power in Russia) - he probably would have continued to piss them off with embargoes and no fly zones...
 Then Yeltsin would have probably dropped a few hundred megatonns on the WTC (they have lousy guidance, so have to hit big), not two airliners.

 miko

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[Hangtime]

!!!!!

I'm laffin. Really.

 

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Eagler:
too bad BushSr wasn't able to finish what he started, not eliminating Saddam per say but stabilizing the region with our allies...

 Seriously, we should have had no allies in that sesspit of a region - including Israel. And no commercial interests to make us need allies.
 Any israelis (3-2 mil) not willing to live on that eternal powder keg (and the willing palestinians too) should have been offered a choice to immigrate/evacuate to US. Would have cost us less money in the short run and paid back in taxes in a few years.
 Those willing to live/die there for religious reasons are not our concern.
 Our energy could have come from domestic/american oil and other sources like nuclear.

 Our amateur politicians are no match to those generations-bred eastern monarchs who have decades to plan their moves and persistence/attention span to follow them through. They implicate us into centuries-old feuds to serve their needs and pay their bills and then leave us holding the bag or turn on us.

 At least as soon as Soviet Union crumbled, US should have broken up with every single monarchic/fundamentalist SOB.

 miko

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[Serapis]

Quick question. How many people contributing to this thread though the Clinton policy in the Middle East was poor before Sept 11? By that, I mean brought it up as part of regular conversation. How many protested in the streets, wrote their members of congress, wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper? I don't recall any outcry myself, and believe me there would have been if anyone (other than a few paper and non-fiction reading nerds) had taken this seriously at the time. It's Monday morning now, but most of the "quarterbacks" don't seem to have been paying much attention when the game was on.

Not the Republicans, who didn't make it a campaign issue (what with Monica and all)-- wasn't on their radar. Too many deployemnts overseas on peacekeeping missions, yeah that was an issue but not our failures to fight terrorism or put Saddam in his place.

Not Bush jr., who was in a hurry to bring back Star Wars and other big ticket programs and not the lighter, efficient "deployable" military the actual military planners have wanted for a decade. There was no emphisis for more intelligence assests from the Republicans that I can recall -- a recon sat. comes with a contribution from Hughes and other contractors. James Bond is an expense with no investment return in the real world of Washington. Like the Democrats, the Republicans are potatos to political contributions. It should also be pointed out that Bush jr. was generally disengaged from the Middle East turmoil until it gave him a reason (unfortunately) to define his administration.

I imagine, if Clinton had responded more agressively (which, he couldn't for many boring, complicated real-world reasons before Sept 11 (no support for offensive land bases, like Saudi Arabia for a new war on Iraq means not much you can do but lob a few bombs and missiles)all the stock owning conservatives would have sh@t when their stock bubble burst a few years ahead of schedule in the face of war spending and general uncertainity. Then, of course, it wouldn't have been "Clinton the Bold"  but Clinton the insane for trashing the economy through unwise foreign policy.

Hey, if it makes you feel good to blame Clinton go ahead. It's simple, and no one has to make their puzzlers hurt trying to understand geopolitics. Fighting terrorism, puting Saddam in his place -- all good ideas both in the past and present.

Unfortunately, there is a real world. I'm not going to blindly Bash Bush Sr. for failing to go all the way in the Gulf War (we could not ignore the demands of the coalition, which made the Gulf War possible in the first place) and I'm not going to bash Clinton (beyond the Somalia FU) for responding to Bin-Laden and Saddam in the only way we could realistically respond in the region before Sept. 11. I'm not even going to bash Bush Jr. if the end result of our war on terrorism is less than succssful, because short of full scale mobilization, a war economy for many years, and a military comprable to 1945 it's not that easy to get satisfaction and justice in the region.

Charon

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Charon:
Quick question. How many people contributing to this thread though the Clinton policy in the Middle East was poor before Sept 11?

 Good point. Unfortunately most people and our media keep calling the WTC casualties "innocent civilian victims" and berate OBL for declaring every american taxpayer a valid target.

 This is just another way for the mostly overweight comfortable and ignorant US citizens to pretend they do not have responcibility for stupid things that government does - allegedely with good intentions and on our behalf.
 This attitude is sure cause us more casualties in the future as the well-meaning presidents elected for their good looks stumble into more pitfalls of international politics.

 miko

[Eagler]

look at it this way:

if you, the dad, has a baby son and raise that son into a spoil rotten brat by the age of eight then the mother divorces you, choses another and gets remarried, is not the new father and their friends going to blame dad #1 for the way the child turned out? Maybe some of the odd behaviors of the son are not obvious to all but as a reaction to certain circumstances are brought to light..

Yes, you are right, for the most part ppl were to busy counting their $$$'s to care about anything other than how many points their 401k went up last week.

I do blame the last administration for many of the screwed up things in the country today. It's not easier, it is accurate.

[mrfish]

Originally posted by Charon:
Quick question. How many people contributing to this thread though the Clinton policy in the Middle East was poor before Sept 11? By that, I mean brought it up as part of regular conversation. How many protested in the streets, wrote their members of congress, wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper?

<raises hand>

[Udie]

Originally posted by Charon:
Quick question. How many people contributing to this thread though the Clinton policy in the Middle East was poor before Sept 11? By that, I mean brought it up as part of regular conversation. How many protested in the streets, wrote their members of congress, wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper? I don't recall any outcry myself, and believe me there would have been if anyone (other than a few paper and non-fiction reading nerds) had taken this seriously at the time.
Charon

me me me me me

 I never protested in the streets as I was too busy working trying to take care of myself b4 the government tried to "take care of me"    But I did write several congressmen, not only my own.  I was a regular caller on that ole evil right wing talk radio.

 As much as I'd like to pin this whole mess on Clinton, I can't honestly do that.  The fact is, as far as I see it, that we (the USA) are ALL to blame for it.  We watched our government more like a soap opera rather than watching it with vigilance.  The Rep's in congress were too busy trying to slam slick willy while the Demo's were too busy succesfully trying to "school lunch" the Rep's (i mean good God who actually believes that anybody would want to starve their constituant's children) Meanwhile the American people let their government act like freaking school kids. There's no telling what was done behind our backs in the last 10 years by both parties.


 What are you gonna do?  They seem to be on the same page now though, so I'm willing to give both parties one more chance.  It's kind of nice to see them go out of their way NOT to argue  

[Hangtime]

This great nation had all the protection against terrorisim it was willing to pay for prior to Sept 11th. Not a penny more; not one life less.

We had the same 12 battle fleets, the same b1b's the same b52's. The same Army, the same Marines, and the same screwed up forigen policy it's had for the last 8 presidents.

The White House has a new parrot every 4 to eight years. He's an interloper.. a Joe who makes speaches; pontifcates, fornicates, defacates and leaves. Small beans.

The guys that gave us this load of horseshit to deal with are the lifelong diplomats, the state department functionaries and policy hacks that artfully dodge the bullets of responsibility.. "wasn't me; man".

Lets toss 'em.

[Jochen]

It is not a Clintons fault that Saddam is still in power.

It is because of impotence of Bush sr. who ultimately he gave the orders to stop advance during the war because he did not have the guts to go further. He was sure that Saddam's regime would collapse but of course, he was wrong.

Don't blame Clinton.

[Dowding]

There was no UN mandate to go any further into Iraq. Without a UN mandate, the US would have lost coalition support - maybe even Saudi Arabia in a bizarre way.

Powell said as much in interviews after the war.

Instead, there was an attempt to foster revolt in the ranks of Saddam's armies and encourage the Kurds to rebel. The result was lots of dead Kurds and localised, Stalinist purges within the ranks of the Iraqi army.

The whole Western policy towards Iraq has been a disaster, and it started way before Clinton or Bush, Snr.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Jochen:
It is because of impotence of Bush sr. who ultimately he gave the orders to stop advance during the war because he did not have the guts to go further..

didn't have the guts? LOL
what, the guts to shoot the Iraq soldiers in the back as they ran away???
no seems he had the brains not to..as shown Saddam the crackpot is the lesser of two evils when compared to the religious sand snorting muslim extremists crackpots who'd probably filled his void.

"Don't blame Clinton"

I do, as he didn't have a clue about anything above his belt buckle. I blame the last in charge. He was "in charge" for the last 8 years, riding the economic wave created by his predecessors while slowly allowing the nation to implode both domestically and internationally.

And look where his "leadership" & "group hug policies" have gotten us .....

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]