alanab 0
true, after n. korea captured seoul, we pushed them back into the north along with the chinese. truman feared our involvement with china would cause WW3. he limited mcarthurs powers and finally rgot rid of him in 1951.
see? i am studying for my 8am history final, and learning too!
see? i am studying for my 8am history final, and learning too!
Then there would have been a war. I am glad he took the option that allowed for peace. It was a risk; it paid off.
Quote
Yes, it was a gamble. I too am glad it turned out the way it did.
It's admirable to go to war based on faulty information, but not admirable to simply _risk_ war based on good information?
What faulty info are you reffering to?
QuoteQuote>What do you think the President and Co-President Clintons response
> would have been if 9-11 had happened during the Clinton
> Administaration?
About the same. They would have blamed the previous administration for the problem, and the attack on Afghanistan would have come off about the same. I think we would have waited longer on the Iraq invasion (if it happened at all) and not gone in until we had the UN behind us.
A better question for you, if you are determined to change this from a discussion of Saddam/Bin Laden links to an argument over whether democrats or republicans are better - what would Gore's response have been if he had been president?
Not trying to change the debate. I'm only pointing out that Clinton believed the same thing as Bush regarding SH and WMDs because he had the same intel. Clinton would have had the same reaction because not only because it was the right response, but because the American People were demanding it.
I'm glad we didn't have to find out how Gore would have reacted.
QuoteIt's admirable to go to war based on faulty information
BILL, did I hear this right?
So, is it your opinion that it is admirable of BUSH to have gone to war with Iraq based on the fact that the intell was faulty?
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
billvon 2,435
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>So, is it your opinion that it is admirable of BUSH to have gone to
>war with Iraq based on the fact that the intell was faulty?
It was a rhetorical question. You seem to think it admirable of Bush to have gone to war based on what could charitably described as somewhat faulty intelligence. You also seem to think it less admirable that Kennedy _avoided_ war based on very good intelligence. I think that's a little odd.
>war with Iraq based on the fact that the intell was faulty?
It was a rhetorical question. You seem to think it admirable of Bush to have gone to war based on what could charitably described as somewhat faulty intelligence. You also seem to think it less admirable that Kennedy _avoided_ war based on very good intelligence. I think that's a little odd.
billvon 2,435
>What faulty info are you reffering to?
The info that Hussein had WMD's and we knew exactly where they were. The info that he tried to buy uranium from Niger. The info that he had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, and that he could use it against the US.
> Clinton would have had the same reaction because not only
>because it was the right response, but because the American People
> were demanding it.
It is a president's job to do the right thing, not what the people are demanding. That's why we have a republic instead of a pure democracy. Mob rule is particularly bad during times of national crisis.
As I said, I think Clinton would have done the same thing in Afghanistan, but would have at the very least delayed entry into Iraq until we had UN backing. No way to know for sure of course.
>I'm glad we didn't have to find out how Gore would have reacted.
Really? I'm suprised. Gore would have been in Iraq _before_ 9/11. He was, by far, the biggest hawk in the Clinton administration. And if you really believe that there was a Saddam/Bin Laden link, it might just have prevented 9/11 to begin with.
(Note that I do NOT agree with the above premise, and I think Gore attacking Iraq before 9/11 would have been a mistake.)
The info that Hussein had WMD's and we knew exactly where they were. The info that he tried to buy uranium from Niger. The info that he had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, and that he could use it against the US.
> Clinton would have had the same reaction because not only
>because it was the right response, but because the American People
> were demanding it.
It is a president's job to do the right thing, not what the people are demanding. That's why we have a republic instead of a pure democracy. Mob rule is particularly bad during times of national crisis.
As I said, I think Clinton would have done the same thing in Afghanistan, but would have at the very least delayed entry into Iraq until we had UN backing. No way to know for sure of course.
>I'm glad we didn't have to find out how Gore would have reacted.
Really? I'm suprised. Gore would have been in Iraq _before_ 9/11. He was, by far, the biggest hawk in the Clinton administration. And if you really believe that there was a Saddam/Bin Laden link, it might just have prevented 9/11 to begin with.
(Note that I do NOT agree with the above premise, and I think Gore attacking Iraq before 9/11 would have been a mistake.)
SkyDekker 1,147
QuoteIt was fear of war with China that stopped us, not North Korea.
And that same fear holds true today. It is one of many things that prevents Bush from invading or bombing North Korea.
Quote>What faulty info are you reffering to?
QuoteThe info that Hussein had WMD's and we knew exactly where they were.
I don't think there's much doubt he had them. The question is what he did with them. Not sure Bush knew we didn't know where they are. Seems many Politicians from both parties believed as Bush did. There's also some fair criticism about the Clinton Admin. policies effects on the CIA's Intel gathering capabilities. i belive they relied too much on technology and not enough emphasis on informers due to a policy that informers with criminal backgrounds couldn't be used. I mean WTF was that about?QuoteThe info that he tried to buy uranium from Niger.
Agreed, at least at this time. I still believe there's more to this story. Too many things don't add up.QuoteThe info that he had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, and that he could use it against the US.
The jury's still out on this one. If you are right, Bush wasn't the only one who thought this and if true, It goes more to an intelligence failure within that community. Question is whether Bush was given faulty intel and if so why?
> Clinton would have had the same reaction because not only
>because it was the right response, but because the American People
> were demanding it.
It is a president's job to do the right thing, not what the people are demanding.That's why we have a republic instead of a pure democracy. Mob rule is particularly bad during times of national crisis.Quote
Uh Bill, we are talking Bill Clinton here. You honestly don't believe Clinton governed based on polls?
Really? I'm suprised. Gore would have been in Iraq _before_ 9/11. He was, by far, the biggest hawk in the Clinton administration. And if you really believe that there was a Saddam/Bin Laden link, it might just have prevented 9/11 to begin with.***Quote
Agreed. Right or wrong, I don't dispute what Bush is doing is because he believes he's doing the right thing. Only time will tell.
As I said, I think Clinton would have done the same thing in Afghanistan, but would have at the very least delayed entry into Iraq until we had UN backing. No way to know for sure of course.
I think Bush gave the U.N. every opportunity to "DO" the right thing.
>I'm glad we didn't have to find out how Gore would have reacted.
I'm surprised to hear you say this. Gore always impressed me as indecisive and too much of a Politician. What makes you believe he would have attacked Iraq as soon as he was in office?
Shark 0
QuoteIt is one of many things that prevents Bush from invading or bombing North Korea.
...or Canada.
billvon 2,435
>i belive they relied too much on technology and not enough emphasis
>on informers due to a policy that informers with criminal backgrounds
>couldn't be used. I mean WTF was that about?
I agree; that was a mistake. I think intentionally blowing the cover on our intelligence agents for political gain is worse, but both administrations had problems with intelligence.
>I think Bush gave the U.N. every opportunity to "DO" the right thing.
A few days before we invaded, both France and Germany said they'd agree to a 30 day ultimatum, followed by the use of force. We didn't want to wait. To me, that's a missed opportunity.
>I'm surprised to hear you say this. Gore always impressed me as
>indecisive and too much of a Politician. What makes you believe he
> would have attacked Iraq as soon as he was in office?
Take a look at his speeches around the end of the first Gulf War; he was disappointed that we stopped where we did. Also, from Pollack's book, concerning attitudes towards Iraq in 1992-1993:
--------------
. . . there were a number of more hawkish officials who believed that the US should be trying not just to contain Saddam but bring him down. . . . The regionalists who carried on the fight day to day were backed by some of the administration's heavyweights, including VP Al Gore; his national security adviser, Leon Fuerth, and UN ambassador Madeline Albright, all of whom were very hawkish on Iraq.
---------------
I have little doubt that he would have immediately begun covert support of insurgents in Iraq (including the Marsh Arabs who were incredibly pissed off at Hussein) and a limited bombing campaign; he campaigned for just that quite heavily in the mid-90's. Would he have done more? I think so, if public reaction to the limited campaign wasn't overwhelmingly negative.
>on informers due to a policy that informers with criminal backgrounds
>couldn't be used. I mean WTF was that about?
I agree; that was a mistake. I think intentionally blowing the cover on our intelligence agents for political gain is worse, but both administrations had problems with intelligence.
>I think Bush gave the U.N. every opportunity to "DO" the right thing.
A few days before we invaded, both France and Germany said they'd agree to a 30 day ultimatum, followed by the use of force. We didn't want to wait. To me, that's a missed opportunity.
>I'm surprised to hear you say this. Gore always impressed me as
>indecisive and too much of a Politician. What makes you believe he
> would have attacked Iraq as soon as he was in office?
Take a look at his speeches around the end of the first Gulf War; he was disappointed that we stopped where we did. Also, from Pollack's book, concerning attitudes towards Iraq in 1992-1993:
--------------
. . . there were a number of more hawkish officials who believed that the US should be trying not just to contain Saddam but bring him down. . . . The regionalists who carried on the fight day to day were backed by some of the administration's heavyweights, including VP Al Gore; his national security adviser, Leon Fuerth, and UN ambassador Madeline Albright, all of whom were very hawkish on Iraq.
---------------
I have little doubt that he would have immediately begun covert support of insurgents in Iraq (including the Marsh Arabs who were incredibly pissed off at Hussein) and a limited bombing campaign; he campaigned for just that quite heavily in the mid-90's. Would he have done more? I think so, if public reaction to the limited campaign wasn't overwhelmingly negative.
A few days before we invaded, both France and Germany said they'd agree to a 30 day ultimatum, followed by the use of force. We didn't want to wait. To me, that's a missed opportunity.
Quote
And you believe that? Germany was stalling, and France was lying._________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.
I'm just glad that we didn't find out.
never pull low......unless you are