Great story from MSNBC--Yes MSNBC

[Stormontheplains]

I found this story from 20005, and thought is was a good read.

Clinton's victory in Iraq

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6859893/

• January 31, 2005 | 1:10 PM ET

I passed a television at the gym yesterday, and it was showing a familiar scene: A crowd of Arabs dancing, chanting, and waving flags for the camera.

Stereotypically, of course, those kinds of Arab crowds are celebrating something awful: A terrorist attack, the downing of a plane, whatever.

But this time, they were celebrating democracy.

And it occurred to me that the "root cause" crowd ought to be celebrating along with them. After all, we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.

That man was Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998. That Act called for "regime change," and the replacement of Saddam with a democratically elected government. And that's what we're about to get! Nor was Clinton alone.

As Al Gore observed:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq.

Gore said we need to stand up for democracy. And we have. Only Al Gore isn't saying much now.

What's hard to understand is why so many Democrats -- including big-name Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry -- have taken such a different stance today. Kennedy declared the war lost and the elections a failure just last week. Kerry was churlish and negative on Meet the Press yesterday. Mickey Kaus blames the Internet for this attitude, and there may be something to that. Jim Geraghty thinks it's the 2008 primaries already. But I don't think either of these explanations hits the mark.

I think it's jealousy. Bush-hatred has become all-consuming among a large section of the Democratic Party, and they can't stand the thought of anything that reflects well on him, even if it's good for the country, and if it's something that was their idea originally.

The question is whether the Democratic Party -- which ought to be cheering events that vindicate Clinton's policies -- will do itself fatal damage by giving in to envy. Such small-mindedness doesn't suggest a party that's ready to govern.

[bendog]

And WJC and Gore have both said they opposed the invasion.

[Spider]

I think everyone wanted Regime change in Iraq , just most of us wanted the Iraqi people to do it ...... Help em along with sanctions ..........Every thing could have went great and as hoped in Iraq , I would still be against this war , I dont think the American military should be used to solve another countries political problems ...........exceptions would be Genocide , or in a relief aid manner

[Crushaholic]

To Clinton, signing a meaningless bill was enough for him. Bush actually DID something about removing Saddam from power.

[Rohirrim]

And I have no doubt that if Clinton, or the rightful president after 2000, Al Gore, had carried out an attack on Iraq, it would have been done holding clearly to the principles of the Powell Doctrine. In other words, we would have entered Iraq with Shinseki's recommended 325,000 troops, plus a powerful coalition of allies, the American people would have heard a truthful debate on the issues involved and the majority would have supported the final decision and we would have struck with overwhelming force and quickly controlled the entire war theater, including the borders, captured Saddam, established a new government, maintained security, restored the infrastructure etc. etc. etc.

Personally speaking, I'm against the whole idea of exporting democracy by force, an intrusive foreign policy bordering on imperialism, or nation building. Dubya himself ran on a platform against all of these things. But I imagine if push came to shove, Clinton and Gore would have conducted themselves much the way they did in Kosovo. I really doubt they would have had Rumsfeld and Cheney playing cowboy with our military. They certainly wouldn't have had the arrogance to trash the Powell Doctrine. And before you bring up Somalia, go back and check on the Republican Congress' voting record and the names of those who voted to immediately withdraw.

Suddenly, the American right wingers have become the party of imperialism, which is really weird. It was even mentioned in the GOP debates last night. They were trying to figure out if there were any conservatives left in the GOP. They have become the party of social, political and foreign policy intrudeniks.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

To Clinton, signing a meaningless bill was enough for him. Bush actually DID something about removing Saddam from power.

Bush had no right to remove Saddam ....... Saddam was an Iraqi problem

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Bush had no right to remove Saddam ....... Saddam was an Iraqi problem

Saddam became an international problem once he decided he wanted to add Kuwait to his empire. Besides, he ruled Iraq with an iron fist. People "voted" for him under penalty of death. The Iraqi people either had to wait until Saddam and his sons died or hope for some outside force helping them remove Saddam.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

Saddam became an international problem once he decided he wanted to add Kuwait to his empire. Besides, he ruled Iraq with an iron fist. People "voted" for him under penalty of death. The Iraqi people either had to wait until Saddam and his sons died or hope for some outside force helping them remove Saddam.

The Saudis and the Egyptians rule with an iron fist too. You don't see us intruding in their internal politics. How many regimes out there right now are run by bloodthirsty despots? Is every one of those countries America's problem to deal with? Why? Iraq was out of Kuwait by the time America invaded in Desert Storm, BTW.

You know who wanted us to invade Iraq? Israel.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Bush had no right to remove Saddam ....... Saddam was an Iraqi problem

And Hitler was a German problem...

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

Saddam became an international problem once he decided he wanted to add Kuwait to his empire.

and we dealt with that , as we should have ..........

Besides, he ruled Iraq with an iron fist. People "voted" for him under penalty of death. The Iraqi people either had to wait until Saddam and his sons died or hope for some outside force helping them remove Saddam.

now take a look at what is going on in Iraq right now , if these people truly hated Saddam , this uprising, sectarian , civil war , whatever you want ot call it , they would joined those that went up Against Saddam a while back ........

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

To Clinton, signing a meaningless bill was enough for him. Bush actually DID something about removing Saddam from power.

The way Clinton got Slobodan Milošević removed from power was the better
way to do it. And Milošević was as big a bastard and as dangerous as Saddam
Hussein, so don't try to say removing Slobodan Milošević wasn't as important
as removing Saddam Hussein.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

And Hitler was a German problem...

Until Hitler declared war on the United States, then it become our problem.

What I'm missing is when did Saddam Hussein issue a formal declaration
of war on the United States of America. Perhaps you can supply a
date and an english translation of the text of the Iraqi declaration
of war on the USA?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

And Hitler was a German problem...

The majority of Americans had no intention of entering WWII before Pearl Harbor, no matter how hard FDR was trying to push us into it. They considered Hitler a European problem. An argument can be made for that. Hitler was already heading for defeat when we entered the European theater. The reason we went in probably had as much to do with heading off the Soviets as it did with taking out the Nazis.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

And Hitler was a German problem...

He was , we had no intention of taking on Hitler , Japan brought us into that war ....History 101 ......... try reading on it sometime

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Until Hitler declared war on the United States, then it become our problem.

What I'm missing is when did Saddam Hussein issue a formal declaration
of war on the United States of America. Perhaps you can supply a
date and an english translation of the text of the Iraqi declaration
of war on the USA?

No Hitler didnt , but the right has no other justification for Iraq , so they invoke Hitler .......

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

He was , we had no intention of taking on Hitler , Japan brought us into that war ....History 101 ......... try reading on it sometime

Did I even say that we took on Hitler?

For someone who dropped out of HS, you sure do blast many people around here for being uneducated. That's rich.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The majority of Americans had no intention of entering WWII before Pearl Harbor, no matter how hard FDR was trying to push us into it. They considered Hitler a European problem. An argument can be made for that. Hitler was already heading for defeat when we entered the European theater. The reason we went in probably had as much to do with heading off the Soviets as it did with taking out the Nazis.

Yeah that winter the Germans hit a wicked storm , in Russia , that storm took a heavy , heavy toll on the German soldiers , add to it , that Hitler tried to take over too much of Europe too fast spreading his troops really thin .......... Hitler may have recovered , but it would have taken time

[Spider]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Did I even say that we took on Hitler?

For someone who dropped out of HS, you sure do blast many people around here for being uneducated. That's rich.

well Genius , we did .........But just out of morbid curiousity , just where was you going with your Hitler remark ?
oh and Genius , you can read and learn outside of H.S. ........ Just in case you need to know this ......

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

No Hitler didnt , but the right has no other justification for Iraq , so they invoke Hitler .......

On December 11, 1941 Adolf Hitler made his announcement at the Reichstag in Berlin saying he had tried to avoid direct conflict with the US but, under the Tripartite Agreement signed on 27 September 1940, Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.

"After victory has been achieved," he said. "Germany, Italy and Japan will continue in closest co-operation with a view to establishing a new and just order."

He accused President Roosevelt of waging a campaign against Germany since 1937, blamed him for the outbreak of war in 1939 and said he was planning to invade Germany in 1943.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3532401.stm

In retrospect Hitler's decision to declare war on a major world power such as the US seems like a major strategic error.

But he could no longer ignore the amount of economic and military aid America was giving the UK and the Soviet Union via the lend-lease programme.

The German Navy had even fought US warships protecting British supply ships in the Atlantic. The US destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk by the submarine U-562 on 31 October 1941.

Hitler had been hostile to the USA since the early 1930s. He saw USA as an ideological enemy , racially mixed and therefore inferior.

He also assumed America would be busy fighting Japan while Germany concentrated on taking over the USSR. He would then tackle the British and Americans.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

To Clinton, signing a meaningless bill was enough for him. Bush actually DID something about removing Saddam from power.

You speak as if Bushii's decsion was a good one. Even assuming Saddam still held power in Iraq, which is a stretch cause we humiliated the crap out of him with inspections, ee'd be better off with Saddam than this mess, because we wouldn't be playing hind and seek in afghanistan.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

well Genius , we did .........But just out of morbid curiousity , just where was you going with your Hitler remark ?
oh and Genius , you can read and learn outside of H.S. ........ Just in case you need to know this ......

My point is, if Hitler would have been successful in conquering Europe like he hoped, and becoming that much more powerful, he then would have been a threat to us. Just like Saddam would pose an immediate threat to the western world had he added Kuwait, like a previous poster mentioned.

The more powerful, and influential these type of iron fisted dictators become, the more of a threat they are to us, and the rest of the world. Best to stop them before hand, and not try to appease them like Chamberlain made the mistake of doing to Hitler.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

On December 11, 1941 Adolf Hitler made his announcement at the Reichstag in Berlin saying he had tried to avoid direct conflict with the US but, under the Tripartite Agreement signed on 27 September 1940, Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.

"After victory has been achieved," he said. "Germany, Italy and Japan will continue in closest co-operation with a view to establishing a new and just order."

He accused President Roosevelt of waging a campaign against Germany since 1937, blamed him for the outbreak of war in 1939 and said he was planning to invade Germany in 1943.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3532401.stm

In retrospect Hitler's decision to declare war on a major world power such as the US seems like a major strategic error.

But he could no longer ignore the amount of economic and military aid America was giving the UK and the Soviet Union via the lend-lease programme.

The German Navy had even fought US warships protecting British supply ships in the Atlantic. The US destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk by the submarine U-562 on 31 October 1941.

Hitler had been hostile to the USA since the early 1930s. He saw USA as an ideological enemy , racially mixed and therefore inferior.

He also assumed America would be busy fighting Japan while Germany concentrated on taking over the USSR. He would then tackle the British and Americans.

and pearl harbor happened on the 7th on dec 1941 .........but war was declared after Pearl harbor ...... not before ........ id Pearl Harbor doesnt happen ,good chance we dont go to WW2

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

My point is, if Hitler would have been successful in conquering Europe like he hoped, and becoming that much more powerful, he then would have been a threat to us. Just like Saddam would pose an immediate threat to the western world had he added Kuwait, like a previous poster mentioned.

The more powerful, and influential these type of iron fisted dictators become, the more of a threat they are to us, and the rest of the world. Best to stop them before hand, and not try to appease them like Chamberlain made the mistake of doing to Hitler.

But we had already stopped Saddam Hussein after the first gulf war,
and his army had been so severely degraded that he wasn't going
anywhere after that. So why the need for a military invasion of Iraq
in 2003?

[gunns]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

And Hitler was a German problem...

No Hitler was a Jewish and European problem until he joined forces with the Japanese, who brought us into the war. I fail to see where your point was going with this statement.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by gunns

No Hitler was a Jewish and European problem until he joined forces with the Japanese, who brought us into the war. I fail to see where your point was going with this statement.

Of course.....I didn't bash Bush or a republican, it never makes sense to you otherwise.