Clinton Says Saddam Never Accounted for Weapons; Bush's Uranium Mistake Understandable

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Yes, your right. One only bombed a country for 4 days, was left unaware if it did any good, failed to continue inspections and left sanctions on a country. The other removed the represive regime, lifted sanctions and set about rebuilding the country based on similar evidence. You are right they did do things differently.

Yes, your right. One controlled the situation within minimum expense and loss of life. The other killed thousands, spent billions, made a mockery of the US internationally, invaded, occupied, and continues to screw things up over there.

You are right they did do things differently.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio
Wow....people just keep bringing up Clinton to justify what ShrubCo has done.

It doesn't work. Clinton is not president. He's not even in public office.

So anything he says about current events should be completely ignored?

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now. Maybe you could read this part though:

Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course

Sounds like he's being awfully nice in calling it a "mistake". What a gentleman, but that's what makes him a good politician.

The rest of us on the other hand don't have to be so nice about Shrubby's "mistake".

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now.

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now.

NO problem I will continue to post relevent news articles to this forum.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

But what if they were not there?

What if you invade, occupy, and kill thousands and they're not there?

Like Blair said, atleast the people are free, and history will forgive us because of it.

See, if our error this time around proves to be true, the people of Iraq are still free. If Clinton's proves to be in err, the people are still oppressed by Saddams regime.

CkG

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio
Wow....people just keep bringing up Clinton to justify what ShrubCo has done.

It doesn't work. Clinton is not president. He's not even in public office.

So anything he says about current events should be completely ignored?

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now. Maybe you could read this part though:

Clinton confined his remarks to biological and chemical weapons, and did not say whether he would consider credible any report that Saddam had wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

Nonetheless, he suggested that Bush's mistake was par for the course

Sounds like he's being awfully nice in calling it a "mistake". What a gentleman, but that's what makes him a good politician.

The rest of us on the other hand don't have to be so nice about Shrubby's "mistake".

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now.

Go ahead and listen if you want, but it's just another opinion now.

NO problem I will continue to post relevent news articles to this forum.

NO problem I will continue to post relevent news articles to this forum.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: etech

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Tell me more about Clinton's 'actions'. How exactly did they resolve the situation? Was Saddam and his sons still in power. Was Saddam still supporting terrorists? Just how effective were Clinton's actions?

Clinton saw evidence of where exactly the WMD were, so he took the best route possible to destroy them, by airstrike. When a President sees that a bad guy has a stash of WMDs, he should try to destroy those WMDs, and he has the legal right if those WMDs are banned by the UN. If Bush, acting on his intelligence of where the WMDs were that posed the imminent threat to our country also called in airstrikes on the locations, that would have been great. Wrong or not, it would have been better than launching a full scale land invasion and occupation which has been called a "guerrilla type war" by the commanding general.

This did still leave the Hussein regime in power. How effective were his actions? But how many times did the Hussein regime use WMDs since then? How many times had the Hussein regmine used WMDs since the Persian Gulf War? Maybe our policy since Bush Sr was working. Saddam was also still able to sponsor the suicide bombers who terrorized Israel, just like our "ally" middle eastern countries did and still do.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

But what if they were not there?

What if you invade, occupy, and kill thousands and they're not there?

Like Blair said, atleast the people are free, and history will forgive us because of it.

See, if our error this time around proves to be true, the people of Iraq are still free. If Clinton's proves to be in err, the people are still oppressed by Saddams regime.

CkG

Is being occupied and run by a foriegn invader what passes as free for you? History will show Bush as a criminal.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Yes, your right. One only bombed a country for 4 days, was left unaware if it did any good, failed to continue inspections and left sanctions on a country. The other removed the represive regime, lifted sanctions and set about rebuilding the country based on similar evidence. You are right they did do things differently.

Yes, your right. One controlled the situation within minimum expense and loss of life. The other killed thousands, spent billions, made a mockery of the US internationally, invaded, occupied, and continues to screw things up over there.

You are right they did do things differently.

Minus the invaded and occupied, I would not be able to tell which president you were talking about. And how can the situation be under control if you have no idea what the effect of the action is.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

And it would have been a great way to get the WMD released into the air....good plan.

I wasn't aware that you were a bio and chem weapons expert.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So if Bush only sat back and lobbed a few hundred missiles at Saddam - you'd have been OK with that? It wouldn't have been "illegal" or "unjust" and you wouldn't be asking for "proof"?

If he lobbed those missiles at the sites where he knew there were WMDs, then that would have been a great solution to the imminent threat Saddam posed to us.

But what if they were not there?

What if you invade, occupy, and kill thousands and they're not there?

Like Blair said, atleast the people are free, and history will forgive us because of it.

See, if our error this time around proves to be true, the people of Iraq are still free. If Clinton's proves to be in err, the people are still oppressed by Saddams regime.

CkG

Is being occupied and run by a foriegn invader what passes as free for you? History will show Bush as a criminal.

History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Yes, your right. One only bombed a country for 4 days, was left unaware if it did any good, failed to continue inspections and left sanctions on a country. The other removed the represive regime, lifted sanctions and set about rebuilding the country based on similar evidence. You are right they did do things differently.

Yes, your right. One controlled the situation within minimum expense and loss of life. The other killed thousands, spent billions, made a mockery of the US internationally, invaded, occupied, and continues to screw things up over there.

You are right they did do things differently.

Minus the invaded and occupied, I would not be able to tell which president you were talking about. And how can the situation be under control if you have no idea what the effect of the action is.

How many thousands of Iraqis did Clinton kill again?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

 

[Moonbeam]

The war was not about WMD. It was sopposed to be about the immediate threat of WMD, but it wasn't about that either.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Yes, your right. One only bombed a country for 4 days, was left unaware if it did any good, failed to continue inspections and left sanctions on a country. The other removed the represive regime, lifted sanctions and set about rebuilding the country based on similar evidence. You are right they did do things differently.

Yes, your right. One controlled the situation within minimum expense and loss of life. The other killed thousands, spent billions, made a mockery of the US internationally, invaded, occupied, and continues to screw things up over there.

You are right they did do things differently.

Minus the invaded and occupied, I would not be able to tell which president you were talking about. And how can the situation be under control if you have no idea what the effect of the action is.

How many thousands of Iraqis did Clinton kill again?

I dont know, but he continued the no flies zones in the north and south for 8 years. This amounts to iraq getting bombed about once a week for 8 years. Then there was a 4 day all air assault on iraq done without UN approval. No one bothered to count the bodies while he was in office.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now about those claims of Clinton destroying it all in '98....who was trying to use that argument? Clinton admits that he can't offer proof of the destruction (or that they were even there to begin with) to justify his actions just like people are clamoring for Bush to justify his actions with "proof".

Nice to see Bill keeping himself in the limelight though... you know...since we neo-cons keep bringing him up

I used that argument, but you predictably spun it to serve your own agenda. I said that it would be obvious to conclude that they got their target, since they didn't strike again. Clinton couldn't offer proof of the destruction because he didn't have the luxury of occupying that country (he only had satellites). Also, he DID NOT admit that he had no proof that the weapons were even there to begin with. He never alluded to that at all. I saw the phone call on Larry King. So don't try to spin it that way. And about Bush justifying his actions when compared to Clinton, you fail to grasp the vast difference between the "actions" of the two Presidents. One called for a night of airstrikes that resulted in the death of no Americans, while the other called for a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general. If Bush called in some airstrikes acting on the great intelligence he had, the uproar over it would have been far far less than it is right now.

And you're right about Clinton hogging the limelight. He was calling into the show to praise Bob Dole on his 80th birthday and he ended up talking politics.

So if Clinton had no proof of weapons, how did they pick targets for the 4 day bombing session? Map and darts?

I never said Clinton didn't have proof. He claimed to, and he acted on it with the airstrikes. I didn't know it last 4 days, but its still a vastly different action then a full scale land invasion and occupation, which has resulted in a "guerilla type war" according the commanding general.

You mean like the current president claimed to and acted on the available intel?

I knew this was what you were alluding to, so I added the line about ACTIONS and how the Presidents ACTED differently. You should just come out and make your points bro, instead of skirting around by asking questions then trying to pop me with a stinger. Reread my statements if you still don't understand my point about the difference between their actions.

Yes, your right. One only bombed a country for 4 days, was left unaware if it did any good, failed to continue inspections and left sanctions on a country. The other removed the represive regime, lifted sanctions and set about rebuilding the country based on similar evidence. You are right they did do things differently.

Yes, your right. One controlled the situation within minimum expense and loss of life. The other killed thousands, spent billions, made a mockery of the US internationally, invaded, occupied, and continues to screw things up over there.

You are right they did do things differently.

Minus the invaded and occupied, I would not be able to tell which president you were talking about. And how can the situation be under control if you have no idea what the effect of the action is.

How many thousands of Iraqis did Clinton kill again?

We don't know - If Clinton didn't know if he destroyed the weapons, how are we supposed to know how many innocent women and children those stikes killed?

CkG

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Is being occupied and run by a foriegn invader what passes as free for you? History will show Bush as a criminal.

History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

Check it out....

Rumour has it that regrouping Baathists, joined by Islamist radicals and perhaps foreign mujahideen, are responsible for the pinprick assaults. Locals also say, however, that the Americans' clumsy policing and harsh reprisals have tended to stoke enmity. In Falouja, for example, where American troops have gunned down more than 20 citizens and themselves lost three men in the past two months, mutual loathing is now deeply entrenched. A recent report by Human Rights Watch admonishes the Americans for excessive use of force in the town.

Two full-scale military operations in the past week, codenamed Peninsula Strike and Desert Scorpion, sent thousands of troops on house-to-house sweeps that netted hundreds of detainees. The vast majority were subsequently released, and the raids appear to have embittered rather than reassured many residents. In one incident, five members of one family, in a staunchly anti-Baathist Shia hamlet, were mistakenly shot down in their fields.

Violent encounters are one cause of resentment. Many Iraqis also complain that last month's decree abolishing the Iraqi army left tens of thousands of well-armed, well-trained officers angry and sometimes destitute. Hostility from such men, and from the many Iraqis who had a stake in the old system, is understandable. Yet impatience with the new rulers extends to other quarters, and other issues.

Adnan Pachachi, an octogenarian ex-foreign minister who is the most respected of Iraq's once-exiled politicians, decries the recent American crackdown as an overreaction. He gives warning of further unrest unless a credible Iraqi government is installed soon. Even America's British allies complain that high-handed dithering is stalling the whole reconstruction project. One British official in Baghdad expressed exasperation at ?an almost complete inability to engage with what needs to be done, and to bring to bear sufficient resources to make a difference.?

http://economist.com/World/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1863593

or just the pic.


Sounds just like a free country right?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

So you want the US to fail at rebuilding at Iraq and have it fall back into a state of brutal dictatorship. I dont know what the future hold, but you will have to forgive me for being optomistic.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

So you want the US to fail at rebuilding at Iraq and have it fall back into a state of brutal dictatorship. I dont know what the future hold, but you will have to forgive me for being optomistic.

Forgive the rest of us for being realistic then.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Is being occupied and run by a foriegn invader what passes as free for you? History will show Bush as a criminal.

History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

Check it out....

Rumour has it that regrouping Baathists, joined by Islamist radicals and perhaps foreign mujahideen, are responsible for the pinprick assaults. Locals also say, however, that the Americans' clumsy policing and harsh reprisals have tended to stoke enmity. In Falouja, for example, where American troops have gunned down more than 20 citizens and themselves lost three men in the past two months, mutual loathing is now deeply entrenched. A recent report by Human Rights Watch admonishes the Americans for excessive use of force in the town.

Two full-scale military operations in the past week, codenamed Peninsula Strike and Desert Scorpion, sent thousands of troops on house-to-house sweeps that netted hundreds of detainees. The vast majority were subsequently released, and the raids appear to have embittered rather than reassured many residents. In one incident, five members of one family, in a staunchly anti-Baathist Shia hamlet, were mistakenly shot down in their fields.

Violent encounters are one cause of resentment. Many Iraqis also complain that last month's decree abolishing the Iraqi army left tens of thousands of well-armed, well-trained officers angry and sometimes destitute. Hostility from such men, and from the many Iraqis who had a stake in the old system, is understandable. Yet impatience with the new rulers extends to other quarters, and other issues.

Adnan Pachachi, an octogenarian ex-foreign minister who is the most respected of Iraq's once-exiled politicians, decries the recent American crackdown as an overreaction. He gives warning of further unrest unless a credible Iraqi government is installed soon. Even America's British allies complain that high-handed dithering is stalling the whole reconstruction project. One British official in Baghdad expressed exasperation at ?an almost complete inability to engage with what needs to be done, and to bring to bear sufficient resources to make a difference.?

http://economist.com/World/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1863593

or just the pic.


Sounds just like a free country right?

And I could post a few articles on how well things are going. I will not claim things are perfect there either.Once again, forgive me for being optimistic.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

So you want the US to fail at rebuilding at Iraq and have it fall back into a state of brutal dictatorship. I dont know what the future hold, but you will have to forgive me for being optomistic.

I never said anything about wanting the US to fail at the rebuilding of Iraq. Don't put words into my mouth. I hope that Iraq becomes a vibrant, progressive, democratic nation that sets an example for the rest of the Middle East. I claim to make no predictions on how history will view it though.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

So you want the US to fail at rebuilding at Iraq and have it fall back into a state of brutal dictatorship. I dont know what the future hold, but you will have to forgive me for being optomistic.

Forgive the rest of us for being realistic then.

So you want the Iraq back in the hands of the Baathe party?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

So you want the US to fail at rebuilding at Iraq and have it fall back into a state of brutal dictatorship. I dont know what the future hold, but you will have to forgive me for being optomistic.

Forgive the rest of us for being realistic then.

So you want the Iraq back in the hands of the Baathe party?

Has anyone said that? Do you think projecting absurd ideas of what other people want is an effective form of debate?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

So you want the US to fail at rebuilding at Iraq and have it fall back into a state of brutal dictatorship. I dont know what the future hold, but you will have to forgive me for being optomistic.

Forgive the rest of us for being realistic then.

So you want the Iraq back in the hands of the Baathe party?

Has anyone said that? Do you think projecting absurd ideas of what other people want is an effective form of debate?

So what is the reality you see versus charrison's optomistic view? Free people dissenting?

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
History will show Iraq to free country, much like Japan and Germany. Bremer is hoping to have Iraq in charge of most of its goverment within a year or so.

I'm sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY know what history will show? Do you have a crystal ball? Making claims on how history will view current events is impossible.

So you want the US to fail at rebuilding at Iraq and have it fall back into a state of brutal dictatorship. I dont know what the future hold, but you will have to forgive me for being optomistic.

Forgive the rest of us for being realistic then.

So you want the Iraq back in the hands of the Baathe party?

Has anyone said that? Do you think projecting absurd ideas of what other people want is an effective form of debate?

Well you have said that we will fail at rebuilding iraq. That failure would likely lead to the Baathe party regaining power.

Or more directly, what condition will Iraq be in after we fail at rebuilding, from a realists point of view.

 

[Zebo]

LOL.. Since when did Clinton become a bastion of credibity. Next thing is Geraldo Rivera thinks Manson is innocent.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Conservatives still beating that dead horse I see.

Clinton never had 200+ US soldiers lives lost, nor did he kill 7000-10000 Iraqi civilians, nor did he make a mockery of American credibility in front of the International community.

I don't see how Clinton's small mistake which was years ago is comparable to Bush's complete and utter fvckup.

But than again, I'm a perfectly reasonable person.