Originally Posted by mmarsh

Donkey

You are attempting to justify Iraq by using 9-11. The US Congress report just released 10 days ago stated that not only was there no tie between OBL and Saddam, but that Saddam had tried to have OBL killed. I remind you the reason we went into Iraq was WMD, not terrorism. They are totally unrelated. the only ones that harping on this fanstasy is the Bush Administration, and they do it to confuse people such as yourself. Its a WMD = Weapon of Mass Deception.

Bill Clinton (or anyother president for that matter) would have never attacked Iraq without a just reason. George Bush Sr held off from attacking Iraq in 1991 because he knew (as did Clinton) that Saddam was a effective counterweight to Iran. He was the lesser of two evils. Thanks th W's Recklessness Saddam is gone and the US is know faced with a Nuclear armed Iran, which is a far greater threat to the US then Saddam ever was.

Bravo George, Bravo.

OK see this is the problem that people seem to have....

No where did I say 9/11 and Iraq was connected, however both issues are ongoing at the same...Everyone knew Saddam was a bad man....Osama has also been up to no good at the same time...Just because these two events are ongoing at the same time does not mean that they are connected however fundamentally they are...It is documented that Saddam has been partial to terrorists maybe not Al Qaeda but terrorists none the less... He had attacked and invaded many countries in the Middle East in the past 20 years... He himself could be labeled a terrorist...

Iran is not nuclear armed....And many people including Clinton himself have been quoted for saying that Saddam was a threat.....

But for some reason people want to try and tie the two together in there mind whenever they hear them mentioned....People tend to get tunnel vision and this is a prime example...

-edit

Saddam may be gone and such the counter balance to Iran but the US now has a significant presence in the Middle East...Divide and Conquer

Bush was planning to invade Iraq way before 9-11. The Neocons had been wanting to scratch the Saddam itch ever since the Gulf War in 1991. The Heritage Foundation (Neocon think tank) begged Clinton to attack Iraq. Furthermore, Saddam's connection with terrorism was limited to the Isreali-Palestinean Conflict. He was supplying payoffs to the families of Palestinean suicide bombers. I absolutely object to the idea of being a World Cop, it is not our job to attack every nation that deals with terrorists. Only those that are a present danger to the USA should be targetted. And anyway you spin it that wasnt Saddam. Saddams past of invading other countries isnt an excuse either. We didnt seem to mind it when he attacked Iran in the 1980's, and by 2003 he wasnt in position to attack anyone, he was in enough trouble holding on to power. Finally I agree people get confused between to the two. But guess whose been the most reponsible for that? its the people in control of the White House. They still are spreading the lies that the two are related. As I said, "Weapon of Mass Distraction".

The US had a significant presence in the ME before the 2003 Iraq war, specifically in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam or Iran wasnt going to try anything while they were there. But with Saddam gone, and the US in a Iraq Quiqmire, Iran is free to do what it wants. And make no mistake, Iran WILL be a nuclear armed nation, there is no stopping that train.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html


The Clinton Administration's Case Against Saddam
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/262bqypn.asp

President Clinton has delivered a stinging rebuke to Saddam Hussein in his address to Congress, indicating that a new conflict with Iraq could soon erupt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/51325.stm

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2921-3401r.htm


I can bring up about a thousand or so more sources on how Clinton wanted to and was planning to attack Saddam....Some how though this stuff gets forgotten....gee I wonder why?!

Donkey

I think we are misunderstanding one another here.

When I said attack Iraq, I really meant "invade Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam from power". I wasn't talking about the various airstrikes. Clintons airstrikes were to destroy a non-exisitant WMD program and to punish Saddam for targeting Allied aircraft. But it was never meant as a way to remove SAddam from power. As I stated, Clinton never contemplated an actual full scale invasion of Iraq. The Neocons on the other hand have had always this fantasy about imposing democracy in the Middle East. We know now the fruits of that disasterous expedition.

Perhaps this is abit clearer to you.

You didnt even bother to read any of those articles or atleast skim over them did you?

Originally Posted by Donkey

OK see this is the problem that people seem to have....

No where did I say 9/11 and Iraq was connected, however both issues are ongoing at the same...Everyone knew Saddam was a bad man....Osama has also been up to no good at the same time...Just because these two events are ongoing at the same time does not mean that they are connected however fundamentally they are...It is documented that Saddam has been partial to terrorists maybe not Al Qaeda but terrorists none the less... He had attacked and invaded many countries in the Middle East in the past 20 years... He himself could be labeled a terrorist...

Iran is not nuclear armed....And many people including Clinton himself have been quoted for saying that Saddam was a threat.....

But for some reason people want to try and tie the two together in there mind whenever they hear them mentioned....People tend to get tunnel vision and this is a prime example...

-edit

Saddam may be gone and such the counter balance to Iran but the US now has a significant presence in the Middle East...Divide and Conquer

To be honest your argument seems to have more of a scatter gun approach than anything else.

Everyone knew Saddam was a bad man

As far as Hussein goes the US has kept leaders that were just as bad in power solely because of their "pro-US" standing so I highly doubt you will convince many that GWB had a sudden burst of conscience.

He had attacked and invaded many countries in the Middle East in the past 20 years... He himself could be labeled a terrorist...

Umm many = 2
Which oddly enough is a fairly close number to that of the USA.

Iran is not nuclear armed.

Well that seems debatable these days but I am pretty sure the change in the balance of power in the middle east has speed up their progress and desire to get nuclear weapons.

Saddam may be gone and such the counter balance to Iran but the US now has a significant presence in the Middle East...Divide and Conquer

Its an interesting concept but unfortunately not entirely accurate, the ongoing battles in Iraq and the ressurgence of the Taleban indicates that there is more to nation building than parking your arse in a countries capital, hoisting a flag and claiming victory and the fact that these countries are still not pacified is making countries Iran, Syria and North Korea bolder.
Hezbollah surviving Israels assault has given them more support and authority in the middle east than they had prior and I am not seeing one of the wests middle eastern "allies" stepping forward to back the west.
If anything I would suggest that the middle east is more united against the west now than it has ever been.

So I will agree with Doppleganger's accessment and add that the "war on terror" has been so badly mismanaged that it is adding fuel to the extremists cause.

Originally Posted by Donkey

You didnt even bother to read any of those articles or atleast skim over them did you?

Do you have to actually read a bunch of reference material to be able to distinguish the difference between a series of airstrike operations against Iraq (Clinton) & (GWH Bush), and a land borne invasion of Iraq (GW Bush)?

I DON'T HAVE TO, AND NEITHER DOES MMARSH.

The differences are so apparent and obvious, that I am NOT even going to enumerate them. Having a hatred of Clinton, doesn't excuse disregarding the obvious, (Not saying you do ... but ... many people DO hate Clinton and can NOT see beyond their hatred, and their posts reflect that bias).

If you read those reference articles and not just the first one, which is the only one that talks about the air strikes that occurred in the form of a presidential address. You would see that the other reference articles discuss how the Clinton administration wanted to do exactly what the Bush administration did and thus the point I was trying to make. (Please dont tell me you are not going to bother to read the material and then try and dicuss the refrence material.)

Finally Iran and it's present day problem can be turned back around to bringing this thread back on topic. President Carter, who botched the dealings with Iran so badly not only did he have over 50 (actual number is 70 I believe) American hostages but the cause of this was the shift in power that occurred. When the Shah came out and the Ayatollah went in and the handling of certain events post. The latter toke place in 1979 prior to the hostage situation at the US embassy which was under the encouragement of the Ayatollah.

On a side note Iraq invaded 2 countries they attacked more under Hussein's regime.

In closing I stumbled upon this article on the net and find it a rather interesting read check it out:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak01.html

-edit

I dont hate Clinton, personally I think he would be a great person to party with

Originally Posted by Donkey

You didnt even bother to read any of those articles or atleast skim over them did you?

Actually I did, but I am not so sure you did. I think your on a fishing expedition.

Absolutely nowhere in any of those articles, does it mention Clinton wishing or planning for a full scale military invasion. The articles mentions airstrikes, but it doesnt saying anything about a land invasion (i.e ground troops). Anybody in the military will tell you that you cannot invade a country without troops on the ground. You are simply twisting the stated facts into order to fit your political opinion. How about providing an articles where Clinton mentions or suggests a full scale invasion WITH ground troops and then I'll acknowledge your point.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Actually I did, but I am not so sure you did. I think your on a fishing expedition.

Absolutely nowhere in any of those articles, does it mention Clinton wishing or planning for a full scale military invasion. The articles mentions airstrikes, but it doesnt saying anything about a land invasion (i.e ground troops). Anybody in the military will tell you that you cannot invade a country without troops on the ground. You are simply twisting the stated facts into order to fit your political opinion. How about providing an articles where Clinton mentions or suggests a full scale invasion WITH ground troops and then I'll acknowledge your point.

Donkey
I hate to say it but MMarsh has it absolutely right. I went back and read every word of every one of the references you have posted, and NOWHERE in ANY of them does it say that Clinton was planning to put troops on the ground in Iraq. THUS HE WASN'T PLANNING ON INVADING IRAQ. The closest it even came to stating Clinton was even planning ANY attacks, was when airstrikes were mentioned as a means of forcing Saddam to comply with the 'No Fly Zones' and the Weapon's Inspectors.

The closest you can even get to anything that could even be mistaken as pre-invasion plans, was Clinton's direction to his people to raise the concern that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction ... this was done to garner public support if/and when airstrikes against Iraqi targets were ordered.

As MM said 'When you can provide an article where Clinton mentions or suggests a full scale invasion WITH ground troops, and then I'll acknowledge your point'. (Paraphrased).