Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: freegeeks
bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort != invasion + occupation
you have some very strange logic. Show me a link where the Clinton administration was really thinking about an invasion + occupation
thx
he said that in the context of giving a speech outlining his reasons/authority for military action against iraq.
strange logic? well what do you think he was referring to? the time and effort of wishful thinking? perhaps saying pretty please for 10 years? how else are you going to remove a dictator from power? lets look at that comment in the broader context of what it was given.
"We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.
We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
there you have it bill clinton on record saying the best way to deal with saddam is to forcably remove him.
i am very sure when he was talking about "The decision to use force" was not farting in thier general direction and taunting them...
you can't read your own posts
We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
with that he is stating the opposite. "Prudently"and "invasion" doesn't go together. "Working with the opposition" doesn't sound like he was planning an invasion.
Like I said before. Show me a link where Clinton talks about an invasion.
btw there are numerous links about the Iraqi policy of Clinton
they seem to fall into two camps: one side prefers to arm Iraqi opposition
groups, while the other side wants to continue the current policy of
"containment," which involves slowly starving the Iraqi population to
death.
link
so this confirms your own link about "working" with the opposition
so show me where Clinton wanted to invade with US troops
please pretty please
i never said he was "planning" an invasion, i did however show you where he said(quite plainly) "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government" he then goes on about "helping opposition forces" but also mentions "The decision to use force is never cost-free.
Whenever AMERICAN FORCES are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. " and pointed out that bush is simply picking up where clinton left off. it is beginning to look like your supposed rebutment is a simple semantic game based on something i never said. it is the usual dem tactic to futily try to hide hypocrasy and duplicity.
here it is again...maybe you can catch it this time.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.
We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. WheneverAMERICAN FORCES are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. ~ bill clinton
so what were the american forces doing? what did he mean by "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government"? does "best" mean something else other than best? does "time and effort" really mean "quick and easy" perhaps a timeframe of before teatime on that following thursday?
so maybe you can answer the same question: if clinton did not need other UN resolutions to commit acts of war on iraq, why does bush?
"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant,
based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."
does "act" mean "pretend" in the context of this sentence? what were they going to do "without delay, diplomacy or warning."? perhaps toss cheesy poofs at them and sing rude songs about saddam's lineage, maybe even resorting to *gasp* harsh language to force him to leave?