Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
you do realise now dont you that you are trying to reason with a government paid shill that has penetrated this forum now? this troll believes in magic bullets that oswald shot kennedy and yet you bother with this stupid fuck?Yes, it workedBush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.Imagine that
Bill Clinton never invaded
No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...
Isolated Hussein and cut him off
The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror
So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.
That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.
It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem
Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be
So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?
That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.
.
The embargo worked as expectedSaddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf WarYes, it workedSo you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.
That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.
It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem
Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be
So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?
That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.
.
Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image
NOT under global sanctions at the time that GW decided to END the embargo. Euro partners were already "moving on".. And did not WANT to participate anymore. Coalition was petering out.. Rightfully so..
And you ignore the part about the JUSTIFICATION for all this being programs dedicated to WMDs.. Where WERE THEY DUDE?? Where's the justification for killing all those citizens and bombing it back to the Stone Age BEFORE we ever invaded?? Need an answer here. Why was it THEIR problem again??
Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
Iraq also cleverly exploited both public opinion and private greed to recast the atmospherics of its position. It began to win worldwide sympathy for the plight of its people, suffering after five years of the toughest embargo ever imposed on a nation. It also whet the financial appetite of European, Asian, and Mideast countries -- headed by Russia, France, and China, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --interested in post-sanctions trade and development. As businessmen began pilgrimages to Baghdad to line up deals, war-time condemnation turned to postwar courting, and the international consensus on sanctions gave way to the disturbing picture of major coalition members advising Iraq on how to end the embargo.
Meanwhile, the United States remained the primary security guarantor of the vulnerable Gulf sheikdoms--an expensive commitment that seemed likely to remain open-ended as long as the United States and its major trading partners remained dependent on imported oil. Up to 20,000 U.S. troops and tons of equipment were deployed in the region indefinitely, an irritating presence for many Arab countries that substantially increased the political price of containment, complicated by the staggering war debt still weighing on many Gulf states. The cost-benefit ratio of sustaining the squeeze on Iraq was mounting for both the United States and the United Nations disarmament effort. The multiplying cost of the short-term policy of containment made achieving the long-term goal of removing Saddam from power ever more unlikely. In the contest over his survival, Saddam was winning
Albright also made clear that, as the price of easing sanctions, the United States expected Iraq not only to fully dismantle its deadliest weapons, but also to comply with all UN resolutions, notably provisions on human rights accords. The speech was an attempt to formalize what Washington had long implied: that the United States would not allow sanctions to be lifted until Hussein either introduced democratic practices or left office. Albright pledged that the U.S. commitment to this ultimate goal would not waiver as long as Saddam was in power. "To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community's standards be met, our answer is --as long as it takes." [4]
But Albright did offer a carrot with the stick, holding out the prospect of a "rapid" U.S. dialogue with Baghdad and major Western assistance to help rebuild the country, once a "successor regime" had emerged. Her appeal was clearly designed to prod Baghdad's ruling inner circle to act.
Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.
In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.
So much for your "global" sanctions ruse. It was US dude. WE brought this on.. Hans Blix??? How many times had he been locked out of Iraq? How much time did he ALREADY have? Nope.. They LOOKED for 12 fucking years. Found NOTHING of consequence.. That embargo HAD TO END...
Kept Saddam contained to the point he was not a threat to anyone outside his borders
The invasion and nation building was a disaster
The embargo worked as expected
Kept Saddam contained to the point he was not a threat to anyone outside his borders
you do realise now dont you that you are trying to reason with a government paid shill that has penetrated this forum now? this troll believes in magic bullets that oswald shot kennedy and yet you bother with this stupid fuck?Yes, it workedBush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...
Isolated Hussein and cut him off
The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror
So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.
That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.
It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem
Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be
So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?
That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.
.
No idea what you are babbling about.The embargo worked as expectedSaddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf WarYes, it worked
It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem
Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be
So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?
That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.
.
Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image
NOT under global sanctions at the time that GW decided to END the embargo. Euro partners were already "moving on".. And did not WANT to participate anymore. Coalition was petering out.. Rightfully so..
And you ignore the part about the JUSTIFICATION for all this being programs dedicated to WMDs.. Where WERE THEY DUDE?? Where's the justification for killing all those citizens and bombing it back to the Stone Age BEFORE we ever invaded?? Need an answer here. Why was it THEIR problem again??
Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
Iraq also cleverly exploited both public opinion and private greed to recast the atmospherics of its position. It began to win worldwide sympathy for the plight of its people, suffering after five years of the toughest embargo ever imposed on a nation. It also whet the financial appetite of European, Asian, and Mideast countries -- headed by Russia, France, and China, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --interested in post-sanctions trade and development. As businessmen began pilgrimages to Baghdad to line up deals, war-time condemnation turned to postwar courting, and the international consensus on sanctions gave way to the disturbing picture of major coalition members advising Iraq on how to end the embargo.
Meanwhile, the United States remained the primary security guarantor of the vulnerable Gulf sheikdoms--an expensive commitment that seemed likely to remain open-ended as long as the United States and its major trading partners remained dependent on imported oil. Up to 20,000 U.S. troops and tons of equipment were deployed in the region indefinitely, an irritating presence for many Arab countries that substantially increased the political price of containment, complicated by the staggering war debt still weighing on many Gulf states. The cost-benefit ratio of sustaining the squeeze on Iraq was mounting for both the United States and the United Nations disarmament effort. The multiplying cost of the short-term policy of containment made achieving the long-term goal of removing Saddam from power ever more unlikely. In the contest over his survival, Saddam was winning
Albright also made clear that, as the price of easing sanctions, the United States expected Iraq not only to fully dismantle its deadliest weapons, but also to comply with all UN resolutions, notably provisions on human rights accords. The speech was an attempt to formalize what Washington had long implied: that the United States would not allow sanctions to be lifted until Hussein either introduced democratic practices or left office. Albright pledged that the U.S. commitment to this ultimate goal would not waiver as long as Saddam was in power. "To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community's standards be met, our answer is --as long as it takes." [4]
But Albright did offer a carrot with the stick, holding out the prospect of a "rapid" U.S. dialogue with Baghdad and major Western assistance to help rebuild the country, once a "successor regime" had emerged. Her appeal was clearly designed to prod Baghdad's ruling inner circle to act.
Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.
In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.
So much for your "global" sanctions ruse. It was US dude. WE brought this on.. Hans Blix??? How many times had he been locked out of Iraq? How much time did he ALREADY have? Nope.. They LOOKED for 12 fucking years. Found NOTHING of consequence.. That embargo HAD TO END...
Kept Saddam contained to the point he was not a threat to anyone outside his borders
The invasion and nation building was a disaster
So you ARE OK with torture and brutality on FALSE PRETENSES.. That's amazing. And a foreign policy that befits Ghengis Khan or Vlad the Impaler.. How liberal of you...
You think that display of carnage would promote Arab Springs? You lean on the same UN that couldn't do ANYTHING on getting Iraq to comply and instead LINED THEIR OWN POCKETS with money from the Oil for Food program taken from the sufferering Iraqis? Are THOSE the folks you followed?
Are you that far lost in partisan brainwashing?
No idea what you are babbling about.The embargo worked as expectedSaddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf WarSo just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?
That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.
.
Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image
NOT under global sanctions at the time that GW decided to END the embargo. Euro partners were already "moving on".. And did not WANT to participate anymore. Coalition was petering out.. Rightfully so..
And you ignore the part about the JUSTIFICATION for all this being programs dedicated to WMDs.. Where WERE THEY DUDE?? Where's the justification for killing all those citizens and bombing it back to the Stone Age BEFORE we ever invaded?? Need an answer here. Why was it THEIR problem again??
Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
Iraq also cleverly exploited both public opinion and private greed to recast the atmospherics of its position. It began to win worldwide sympathy for the plight of its people, suffering after five years of the toughest embargo ever imposed on a nation. It also whet the financial appetite of European, Asian, and Mideast countries -- headed by Russia, France, and China, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --interested in post-sanctions trade and development. As businessmen began pilgrimages to Baghdad to line up deals, war-time condemnation turned to postwar courting, and the international consensus on sanctions gave way to the disturbing picture of major coalition members advising Iraq on how to end the embargo.
Meanwhile, the United States remained the primary security guarantor of the vulnerable Gulf sheikdoms--an expensive commitment that seemed likely to remain open-ended as long as the United States and its major trading partners remained dependent on imported oil. Up to 20,000 U.S. troops and tons of equipment were deployed in the region indefinitely, an irritating presence for many Arab countries that substantially increased the political price of containment, complicated by the staggering war debt still weighing on many Gulf states. The cost-benefit ratio of sustaining the squeeze on Iraq was mounting for both the United States and the United Nations disarmament effort. The multiplying cost of the short-term policy of containment made achieving the long-term goal of removing Saddam from power ever more unlikely. In the contest over his survival, Saddam was winning
Albright also made clear that, as the price of easing sanctions, the United States expected Iraq not only to fully dismantle its deadliest weapons, but also to comply with all UN resolutions, notably provisions on human rights accords. The speech was an attempt to formalize what Washington had long implied: that the United States would not allow sanctions to be lifted until Hussein either introduced democratic practices or left office. Albright pledged that the U.S. commitment to this ultimate goal would not waiver as long as Saddam was in power. "To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community's standards be met, our answer is --as long as it takes." [4]
But Albright did offer a carrot with the stick, holding out the prospect of a "rapid" U.S. dialogue with Baghdad and major Western assistance to help rebuild the country, once a "successor regime" had emerged. Her appeal was clearly designed to prod Baghdad's ruling inner circle to act.
Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.
In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.
So much for your "global" sanctions ruse. It was US dude. WE brought this on.. Hans Blix??? How many times had he been locked out of Iraq? How much time did he ALREADY have? Nope.. They LOOKED for 12 fucking years. Found NOTHING of consequence.. That embargo HAD TO END...
Kept Saddam contained to the point he was not a threat to anyone outside his borders
The invasion and nation building was a disaster
So you ARE OK with torture and brutality on FALSE PRETENSES.. That's amazing. And a foreign policy that befits Ghengis Khan or Vlad the Impaler.. How liberal of you...
You think that display of carnage would promote Arab Springs? You lean on the same UN that couldn't do ANYTHING on getting Iraq to comply and instead LINED THEIR OWN POCKETS with money from the Oil for Food program taken from the sufferering Iraqis? Are THOSE the folks you followed?
Are you that far lost in partisan brainwashing?
I have always condemned Bush engaging in torture and believe he should have been prosecuted
No idea what you are babbling about.The embargo worked as expectedSaddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf War
Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image
NOT under global sanctions at the time that GW decided to END the embargo. Euro partners were already "moving on".. And did not WANT to participate anymore. Coalition was petering out.. Rightfully so..
And you ignore the part about the JUSTIFICATION for all this being programs dedicated to WMDs.. Where WERE THEY DUDE?? Where's the justification for killing all those citizens and bombing it back to the Stone Age BEFORE we ever invaded?? Need an answer here. Why was it THEIR problem again??
Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
Iraq also cleverly exploited both public opinion and private greed to recast the atmospherics of its position. It began to win worldwide sympathy for the plight of its people, suffering after five years of the toughest embargo ever imposed on a nation. It also whet the financial appetite of European, Asian, and Mideast countries -- headed by Russia, France, and China, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --interested in post-sanctions trade and development. As businessmen began pilgrimages to Baghdad to line up deals, war-time condemnation turned to postwar courting, and the international consensus on sanctions gave way to the disturbing picture of major coalition members advising Iraq on how to end the embargo.
Meanwhile, the United States remained the primary security guarantor of the vulnerable Gulf sheikdoms--an expensive commitment that seemed likely to remain open-ended as long as the United States and its major trading partners remained dependent on imported oil. Up to 20,000 U.S. troops and tons of equipment were deployed in the region indefinitely, an irritating presence for many Arab countries that substantially increased the political price of containment, complicated by the staggering war debt still weighing on many Gulf states. The cost-benefit ratio of sustaining the squeeze on Iraq was mounting for both the United States and the United Nations disarmament effort. The multiplying cost of the short-term policy of containment made achieving the long-term goal of removing Saddam from power ever more unlikely. In the contest over his survival, Saddam was winning
Albright also made clear that, as the price of easing sanctions, the United States expected Iraq not only to fully dismantle its deadliest weapons, but also to comply with all UN resolutions, notably provisions on human rights accords. The speech was an attempt to formalize what Washington had long implied: that the United States would not allow sanctions to be lifted until Hussein either introduced democratic practices or left office. Albright pledged that the U.S. commitment to this ultimate goal would not waiver as long as Saddam was in power. "To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community's standards be met, our answer is --as long as it takes." [4]
But Albright did offer a carrot with the stick, holding out the prospect of a "rapid" U.S. dialogue with Baghdad and major Western assistance to help rebuild the country, once a "successor regime" had emerged. Her appeal was clearly designed to prod Baghdad's ruling inner circle to act.
Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.
In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.
So much for your "global" sanctions ruse. It was US dude. WE brought this on.. Hans Blix??? How many times had he been locked out of Iraq? How much time did he ALREADY have? Nope.. They LOOKED for 12 fucking years. Found NOTHING of consequence.. That embargo HAD TO END...
Kept Saddam contained to the point he was not a threat to anyone outside his borders
The invasion and nation building was a disaster
So you ARE OK with torture and brutality on FALSE PRETENSES.. That's amazing. And a foreign policy that befits Ghengis Khan or Vlad the Impaler.. How liberal of you...
You think that display of carnage would promote Arab Springs? You lean on the same UN that couldn't do ANYTHING on getting Iraq to comply and instead LINED THEIR OWN POCKETS with money from the Oil for Food program taken from the sufferering Iraqis? Are THOSE the folks you followed?
Are you that far lost in partisan brainwashing?
I have always condemned Bush engaging in torture and believe he should have been prosecuted
What part of France, Italy, Greece and others RE-establishing diplomatic and trade missions is a "global coalition"?? What part of the REASON for the containment wasnt a damn lie? The false pretenses for CONTAINMENT are the SAME false pretenses for invading and removing Saddam. AND was the SAME false pretenses for Clinton's Monica Night massive bombing speech. Containment HAD no valid justification as it turns out -- but you're just fine with that.
Didn't think this would stump you.. Maybe I over-estimated...
We KILLED 300,000 Iraqis civilians from starvation, lack of med support and destruction of their infrastructure for 12 years.Took aways the keys to their economy and locked them up with a shotgun toting madman with dungeons while we smashed their power, water, sewage, communication infrastructure.
And you're fine with CONTINUING that indefinitely?
That’s funnyPresident Bush did everything required of him to authorize the use of Troops in Iraq but maybe he wasn't aware that the CIA had turned into a political propaganda arm of the democrat party and treason wasn't off the table when democrats decided to un-authorize the use of Troops in order to create a political issue. How many people remember Bill Clinton's bombing of a defenseless country when he was literally caught with his pants down? It wasn't about WMD's, it was about Monica. The left wing media loved the concept even when NATO bombers had to use old road maps and bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake. .
Bill Clinton sent a couple of cruise missiles on an abandoned bin Ladin camp and declared victory. The mainstream media called for a tickertape parade.That’s funnyPresident Bush did everything required of him to authorize the use of Troops in Iraq but maybe he wasn't aware that the CIA had turned into a political propaganda arm of the democrat party and treason wasn't off the table when democrats decided to un-authorize the use of Troops in order to create a political issue. How many people remember Bill Clinton's bombing of a defenseless country when he was literally caught with his pants down? It wasn't about WMD's, it was about Monica. The left wing media loved the concept even when NATO bombers had to use old road maps and bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake. .
Clinton launched an attack on bin Laden and republicans accused him of wagging the dog to divert attention from their blowjob investigation
Saddam was no threat to anyone outside his own country
Invasion and forming an unsustainable government was not the answer. There are tyrants around the world. Unless they shave major oil supplies we don’t care
Clinton orders air attack on Iraq - Dec 16, 1998 - HISTORY.com
WATCH THIS LEWINSKY NIGHT VIDEO to understand where GW GOT those ideas about the covert chem, bio, nuclear programs in Iraq... And let @Rdean explain Clinton was not lying to the American people.
That was not the only time. Actually the US was routinely bombing Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, I think monthly at least but usually weekly or sometimes more often.
I think I had a flyer about it from some peace group, I can't find that data on the net right now.
This article has some information, by no means exhaustive:
When Iraq Was Clinton’s War
Imagine that
Bill Clinton never invaded
No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...
Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.
Isolated Hussein and cut him off
The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror
So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.
That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.
Still waiting for those links.Bush 41 and Clinton’s sanctions worked.Imagine thatThat was not the only time. Actually the US was routinely bombing Iraq when Bill Clinton was president, I think monthly at least but usually weekly or sometimes more often.
I think I had a flyer about it from some peace group, I can't find that data on the net right now.
This article has some information, by no means exhaustive:
When Iraq Was Clinton’s War
Bill Clinton never invaded
No -- he just starved and sickened a couple hundred thousand Iraqis to death and bombed them nearly daily. And left them locked up with a madman for 8 years with no National economy.... And no solution...
Isolated Hussein and cut him off
The invasion and occupation were a disaster and diverted the war on terror
So you just BLOW OFF my reminder about 300,000 Iraqi citizens deaths from starvation, lack of meds and living in the Stone Age?? THAT'S your definition of "WORKING"?? For over a DECADE? with no resolution.
That's as bad as what Kim Jung and his dad have done to N. Korea. And Clinton's Sec State called it acceptable collateral damage. That's the way you see it.
Bill Clinton sent a couple of cruise missiles on an abandoned bin Ladin camp and declared victory. The mainstream media called for a tickertape parade.That’s funnyPresident Bush did everything required of him to authorize the use of Troops in Iraq but maybe he wasn't aware that the CIA had turned into a political propaganda arm of the democrat party and treason wasn't off the table when democrats decided to un-authorize the use of Troops in order to create a political issue. How many people remember Bill Clinton's bombing of a defenseless country when he was literally caught with his pants down? It wasn't about WMD's, it was about Monica. The left wing media loved the concept even when NATO bombers had to use old road maps and bombed the Chinese embassy by mistake. .
Clinton launched an attack on bin Laden and republicans accused him of wagging the dog to divert attention from their blowjob investigation
After 9-11, we gave Bush a 9-11 card where he could do anything in the name of fighting terrorismYou could say that the U.S. was tricked into WW2 when FDR grossly underestimated the Japanese military and invited attack so that we could get into the "real war" in Europe. You could say that the U.S. was tricked into Korea when Truman sent Troops on an executive order and bungled the conflict to such an extent that we lost an estimated 50,000 Americans during the three year quagmire that should have lasted six months. We know that the U.S. was tricked into Vietnam with a fake crisis created by LBJ and he rigged the conflict so that we could win every battle and still lose the war.God knows that Bill Clinton tricked NATO into bombing a defenseless country into the stone age when he was caught with his pants down. President Bush did everything on the up and up and even gave Saddam a year to comply with U.N. sanctions. Somehow, with the cooperation of the left wing media, the small minded angry left got it into their small minds that they were tricked into the Iraq conflict when congress including 36% of democrats voted for boots on the ground.
What are you talking about, "partisan"?The embargo worked as expectedSaddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf WarYes, it worked
It was THEIR problem. Just like N Korea is THEIR problem
Invasion and empire building was a complete disaster. Just like N Korea would be
So just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?
That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.
.
Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image
NOT under global sanctions at the time that GW decided to END the embargo. Euro partners were already "moving on".. And did not WANT to participate anymore. Coalition was petering out.. Rightfully so..
And you ignore the part about the JUSTIFICATION for all this being programs dedicated to WMDs.. Where WERE THEY DUDE?? Where's the justification for killing all those citizens and bombing it back to the Stone Age BEFORE we ever invaded?? Need an answer here. Why was it THEIR problem again??
Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
Iraq also cleverly exploited both public opinion and private greed to recast the atmospherics of its position. It began to win worldwide sympathy for the plight of its people, suffering after five years of the toughest embargo ever imposed on a nation. It also whet the financial appetite of European, Asian, and Mideast countries -- headed by Russia, France, and China, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --interested in post-sanctions trade and development. As businessmen began pilgrimages to Baghdad to line up deals, war-time condemnation turned to postwar courting, and the international consensus on sanctions gave way to the disturbing picture of major coalition members advising Iraq on how to end the embargo.
Meanwhile, the United States remained the primary security guarantor of the vulnerable Gulf sheikdoms--an expensive commitment that seemed likely to remain open-ended as long as the United States and its major trading partners remained dependent on imported oil. Up to 20,000 U.S. troops and tons of equipment were deployed in the region indefinitely, an irritating presence for many Arab countries that substantially increased the political price of containment, complicated by the staggering war debt still weighing on many Gulf states. The cost-benefit ratio of sustaining the squeeze on Iraq was mounting for both the United States and the United Nations disarmament effort. The multiplying cost of the short-term policy of containment made achieving the long-term goal of removing Saddam from power ever more unlikely. In the contest over his survival, Saddam was winning
Albright also made clear that, as the price of easing sanctions, the United States expected Iraq not only to fully dismantle its deadliest weapons, but also to comply with all UN resolutions, notably provisions on human rights accords. The speech was an attempt to formalize what Washington had long implied: that the United States would not allow sanctions to be lifted until Hussein either introduced democratic practices or left office. Albright pledged that the U.S. commitment to this ultimate goal would not waiver as long as Saddam was in power. "To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community's standards be met, our answer is --as long as it takes." [4]
But Albright did offer a carrot with the stick, holding out the prospect of a "rapid" U.S. dialogue with Baghdad and major Western assistance to help rebuild the country, once a "successor regime" had emerged. Her appeal was clearly designed to prod Baghdad's ruling inner circle to act.
Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.
In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.
So much for your "global" sanctions ruse. It was US dude. WE brought this on.. Hans Blix??? How many times had he been locked out of Iraq? How much time did he ALREADY have? Nope.. They LOOKED for 12 fucking years. Found NOTHING of consequence.. That embargo HAD TO END...
Kept Saddam contained to the point he was not a threat to anyone outside his borders
The invasion and nation building was a disaster
So you ARE OK with torture and brutality on FALSE PRETENSES.. That's amazing. And a foreign policy that befits Ghengis Khan or Vlad the Impaler.. How liberal of you...
You think that display of carnage would promote Arab Springs? You lean on the same UN that couldn't do ANYTHING on getting Iraq to comply and instead LINED THEIR OWN POCKETS with money from the Oil for Food program taken from the sufferering Iraqis? Are THOSE the folks you followed?
Are you that far lost in partisan brainwashing?
That I agree with, the Libertarian Party has been consistent on this issue.Saddam was no threat to anyone outside his own country
Then the containment you're so fond of was completely illegitimate. Why continue it and increase the unholy damage we caused to the people of Iraq? BOTH of your parties were operating immorally and in bad faith.
Invasion and forming an unsustainable government was not the answer. There are tyrants around the world. Unless they shave major oil supplies we don’t care
Of course the occupation and nation building was unwise and based on fantasies of Democracy in the Mid East. We DID completely destroy their country on false premises tho and they probably deserved a big house re-opening party from us. The invasion got rid of the madman they NEEDED to keep Iraq united and not succumb to tribal Arab warfare or Iranian influence. But it STOPPED the embargo and the STARVATION of Iraq. Bush almost had it right. Topple Saddam, build them a free never empty Home Depot and leave would have been much better.
Right now -- a large percentage of leadership, particularly in the Dems, are raving about removing yet ANOTHER madman Arab ruler of Syria. They want him dead. AGAIN on the premise that Unicorns and Freedom are gonna roam the country. The 2 parties are so SO dumb and inept -- they never learn -- do they?
LParty has been CONSISTENT on the MidEast since the 70s. Now America largely agrees with us.
The majority of Democrats opposed the Iraq invasionWhat are you talking about, "partisan"?The embargo worked as expectedSaddam was under global economic and military sanctions as a result of his losing the first Gulf WarSo just for the record. You have NO PROBLEM with killing 250 or 350,000 CIVILIANS and locking up their economy and BOMBING them nearly every day of the week for 12 YEARS -- on the FALSE PRETENSE of "weapons of mass destruction" and you would CONTINUE to kill and bomb them for ANOTHER 10 years without remorse.. Correct?
That's totally senseless and morally reprehensible. Like Mad Albright.
You do realize that we LOST the Euro allies who had already decided to do the right thing and WALK AWAY?
The Germans were holding Trade Fairs for Baghdad and moving on about the time Bush decided to END the stalemate.
.
Given the available options, I prefer maintaining the sanctions to invasion and reshaping Iraq in our own image
NOT under global sanctions at the time that GW decided to END the embargo. Euro partners were already "moving on".. And did not WANT to participate anymore. Coalition was petering out.. Rightfully so..
And you ignore the part about the JUSTIFICATION for all this being programs dedicated to WMDs.. Where WERE THEY DUDE?? Where's the justification for killing all those citizens and bombing it back to the Stone Age BEFORE we ever invaded?? Need an answer here. Why was it THEIR problem again??
Readings & Links - America's Iraq Policy - How Did It Come To This? | Spying On Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
Iraq also cleverly exploited both public opinion and private greed to recast the atmospherics of its position. It began to win worldwide sympathy for the plight of its people, suffering after five years of the toughest embargo ever imposed on a nation. It also whet the financial appetite of European, Asian, and Mideast countries -- headed by Russia, France, and China, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --interested in post-sanctions trade and development. As businessmen began pilgrimages to Baghdad to line up deals, war-time condemnation turned to postwar courting, and the international consensus on sanctions gave way to the disturbing picture of major coalition members advising Iraq on how to end the embargo.
Meanwhile, the United States remained the primary security guarantor of the vulnerable Gulf sheikdoms--an expensive commitment that seemed likely to remain open-ended as long as the United States and its major trading partners remained dependent on imported oil. Up to 20,000 U.S. troops and tons of equipment were deployed in the region indefinitely, an irritating presence for many Arab countries that substantially increased the political price of containment, complicated by the staggering war debt still weighing on many Gulf states. The cost-benefit ratio of sustaining the squeeze on Iraq was mounting for both the United States and the United Nations disarmament effort. The multiplying cost of the short-term policy of containment made achieving the long-term goal of removing Saddam from power ever more unlikely. In the contest over his survival, Saddam was winning
Albright also made clear that, as the price of easing sanctions, the United States expected Iraq not only to fully dismantle its deadliest weapons, but also to comply with all UN resolutions, notably provisions on human rights accords. The speech was an attempt to formalize what Washington had long implied: that the United States would not allow sanctions to be lifted until Hussein either introduced democratic practices or left office. Albright pledged that the U.S. commitment to this ultimate goal would not waiver as long as Saddam was in power. "To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community's standards be met, our answer is --as long as it takes." [4]
But Albright did offer a carrot with the stick, holding out the prospect of a "rapid" U.S. dialogue with Baghdad and major Western assistance to help rebuild the country, once a "successor regime" had emerged. Her appeal was clearly designed to prod Baghdad's ruling inner circle to act.
Albright's tough new stance seemed oddly out of step with the trends; even as the U.S. position grew tougher, other countries were taking steps to bring Saddam's regime back into the international fold --without any change in government.
In the first half of 1997, a growing number of America's partners in the coalition sent diplomats back to Baghdad and struck commercial deals. Italy, Spain, and Greece reopened embassies in Baghdad, while France staffed an interest section there for the first time in seven years. All of these moves indicated a de facto acceptance of the rogue regime. Two delegations of Italian parliamentarians, and one of French, visited Iraq for talks, while a former senior French military officer headed a group of business executives from some 50 companies that staged a three-day "fair" in an attempt to secure business contracts.
So much for your "global" sanctions ruse. It was US dude. WE brought this on.. Hans Blix??? How many times had he been locked out of Iraq? How much time did he ALREADY have? Nope.. They LOOKED for 12 fucking years. Found NOTHING of consequence.. That embargo HAD TO END...
Kept Saddam contained to the point he was not a threat to anyone outside his borders
The invasion and nation building was a disaster
So you ARE OK with torture and brutality on FALSE PRETENSES.. That's amazing. And a foreign policy that befits Ghengis Khan or Vlad the Impaler.. How liberal of you...
You think that display of carnage would promote Arab Springs? You lean on the same UN that couldn't do ANYTHING on getting Iraq to comply and instead LINED THEIR OWN POCKETS with money from the Oil for Food program taken from the sufferering Iraqis? Are THOSE the folks you followed?
Are you that far lost in partisan brainwashing?
Most Republicans and Democrats were for the war and bombing, he didn't say he was for the bombing and said he was against the war.
That I agree with, the Libertarian Party has been consistent on this issue.Saddam was no threat to anyone outside his own country
Then the containment you're so fond of was completely illegitimate. Why continue it and increase the unholy damage we caused to the people of Iraq? BOTH of your parties were operating immorally and in bad faith.
Invasion and forming an unsustainable government was not the answer. There are tyrants around the world. Unless they shave major oil supplies we don’t care
Of course the occupation and nation building was unwise and based on fantasies of Democracy in the Mid East. We DID completely destroy their country on false premises tho and they probably deserved a big house re-opening party from us. The invasion got rid of the madman they NEEDED to keep Iraq united and not succumb to tribal Arab warfare or Iranian influence. But it STOPPED the embargo and the STARVATION of Iraq. Bush almost had it right. Topple Saddam, build them a free never empty Home Depot and leave would have been much better.
Right now -- a large percentage of leadership, particularly in the Dems, are raving about removing yet ANOTHER madman Arab ruler of Syria. They want him dead. AGAIN on the premise that Unicorns and Freedom are gonna roam the country. The 2 parties are so SO dumb and inept -- they never learn -- do they?
LParty has been CONSISTENT on the MidEast since the 70s. Now America largely agrees with us.
