- This topic has 57 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
qa, why exactly was regime change more important in Iraq than in North Korea? Surely you are aware that North Korea was well on its way to developing nuclear weapons in 2003, when the US declared war in Iraq (they’ve since exploded weapons equivalent in power to those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki). There is no evidence that Iraq was close to developing them in 2003 before the US declared war, and no evidence of nuclear weapons was found afterwards either.
just for the record, there is minimal if any connection between Hussein and/or Iraq and 9/11. Saddam Hussein did not have contact with Osama bin Laden, and in fact Hussein considered bin Laden an enemy (the CIA knew this in 2002). Yes, Hussein did fund the families of Palestinian suicide bombers; so did the Saudi royal family (the Israelis found documents detailing these payments during Operation Defensive Shield). And while 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, none were from Iraq. Do you think that the US should declare war on Saudi Arabia? (I don’t).
You are mistaken. N. Korea already first possessed several nuclear bombs it developed during the Clinton Administration. Slick Willie was too busy with certain friends to do anything about it.
We know for a fact that Saddam had possesed WMD. In fact Saddam murdered his own countrymen with WMD. Whether he eliminated his WMD before the Iraq war was not something the U.S. could determine with any comfortable degree of certainty without forcibly entering into Iraq, considering that Saddam had previously expelled the U.N. nuclear watchdog from Iraq. As a result, there was every reason and right to be suspicious of Iraq’s WMD program. Saddam was at fault for these suspicions with his expulsion of the IAEA.
Perhaps it is debatable who we should have taken on first, N. Korea or Iraq. Perhaps, since Clinton allowed N. Korea to develop nukes before we did anything, N. Korea was a more difficult situation than Iraq (since it possesed nukes and is within easy reach of Seoul) so we took on Iraq first. This is a consideration for the NSC and the POTUS, not us who aren’t privy to relevant national secrets.
It is completely secondary that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Iran wasn’t either. Should we do nothing about Iran now (including eliminating from the table the possibility of military action) since Iran wasn’t involved in 9/11?
Also, let us not forget Clinton’s utter failure to respond at all after the terrorists attacked the United States in 2000 with the USS Cole bombing killing 17 U.S. Navy sailors. Unlike in 1998 after the terrorists attacked the 2 U.S. embassies in Africa, when all Clinton could muster was a pre-announced attack on a Sudanese animal pharmaceutical plant for the murder of 12 Americans (and even that was merely to deflect attention from his philandering ways in the news), after the USS Cole Clinton did zilch to the terrorists.
That lack of response by Clinton is what gave Bin Laden the impetus to think he could get away with the 9/11 attacks with impunity and encouraged Al Quida to carry those attacks out directly on U.S. soil.
qa,
There is no evidence that North Korea had any actual nuclear weapons until after 2001. It *did* possess plutonium and the Clinton Administration successfully got them to give some of it up. While Saddam Hussein was a rasha he was not on the same scale as the people who run North Korea and we knew for sure that he did NOT have a functioning nuclear program in 2003.
And it is not clear that what replaced Saddam Hussein is any better for Israel than Hussein himself. Iraq remains in a state of hot war with Israel and could legally attack Israel at any time; that is unlikely only because of lack of military capability not lack of hostility.
Regarding the USS Cole, it was not clear for several months that Al Qaeda was behind the bombing. It was not until January 25, 2001 that we were pretty sure that Al Qaeda was responsible, but that was after Clinton had left office; Condeleeza Rice told the 9/11 commission that President Bush decided not to respond and that she had supported that decision. So the blame, if any, for a lack of appropriate response to the Cole attack falls on Bush, not Clinton.
qa, Saddam Hussein murdered his countrymen with poison gas. However despicable, the fact that Hussein possessed poison gas & did not hesitate to use it on his own citizens never posed a threat to others.
Do you believe the US should attack other countries with tyrannical leaders, if those leaders are murdering their own citizens? Besides North Korea, should the US attack China (eg, Tianemen Square, and the rountine execution of political prisoners in order to sell ther organs) and Russia (known for murdering journalists & other members of the opposition, using tools such as polonium-210, a true WMD)?. Of course there’s also the Sudan, whose president is currently involved in genocide that’s killed (at least) many thousands of citizens.
charliehall, thanks for those facts.
Saddam was a threat to his own people. Saddam was a threat to regional peace. And Saddam was a threat to U.S. national interests, which was reason for the U.S. to take out Saddam.
Taking out Saddam was achievable. To compare that to taking out the regimes in Russia or China is absurd, as that would likely trigger WWIII.
It was known in the late 90’s that N. Korea possessed nukes. Clinton slept on the job in regards to N. Korea, Iraq, Al Quida, China (thanks to illegal campaign contributions to the Democrats) and just about every other U.S. national interest. His response to terrorism against the U.S. was pathetic, to put it mildly, which gave the terrorists license to think the U.S. could be attacked with impunity on 9/11, which occurred less than 8 months after Clinton left office, after years of terrorist planning.
Bill Clinton bears direct responsibility for 9/11 having occurred.
I see no evidence that Iraq as a country is chomping at the bit to go on the warpath against Israel and holding back only because of lack of military capability.
I have no illusions that they like Israel or Jews, but that is not the same as saying (or implying) that they, like Iran, are just focusing on the day they can attack Israel, as their first and foremost priority, the same way Saddam, wanted to.
The US did not need to know that Al Queda was behind the Cole bombing, they knew it was Jihadists who did it.
And Clinton did nothing whatsoever, to go after jhihadists, or to protect our own military (or country or overseas interests), from further attacks.
Attacks like this going unanswered, was what made the terrorists, think America was “a paper tiger”.
hereorthere–
Israel has had several decades of peace with Egypt and has received nearly $100 billion in U.S. aid since the Camp David accords. The original security guarantee came from U.N. troops stationed between the countries, and the Sinai being largely demilitarized, especially closer to Israel. The U.N. has since withdrawn, but (I think) the Sinai demilitarization is still in place.
The Sinai was never intended to be part of Israel. Israel did give up a military base and (IIRC) some oil wells in the Sinai.
I never heard of the Egyptian economy having problems that prevented further aggression.
anon for this–
My opinion about reasons why the U.S. is unlikely to attack or invade Iran:
2) Domestic pressure
3) World opinion / pressure
There supposedly was evidence that Iraq was attempting to get components for nukes before the invasion. I never understood why Saddam basically committed suicide instead of just inviting the inspectors back in.
charliehall–
Iraq remains in a state of hot war with Israel and could legally attack Israel at any time; that is unlikely only because of lack of military capability not lack of hostility.
Nobody on either side of the aisle realized the scope of the danger facing us.
The bad guys did a great job of catching us unawares, and there were low-level intelligence failures in detecting the flight-school hijackers.
I can only try;
That is one of my points.
I think the money Israel got, did far more harm then good.
If they had not gotten it, Egypt might not have gotten any either.
And Israel would ahve been forced to be less socialistic and more capitalistic in order to survive.
This in turn would have made them more prosperous and they would have done it totally on their own without America havinfg any ‘right’ to tell them what they ‘must’ give up for more terrorism.
As you pointed out they lost some oil and a military base.
So they never in tended to keep it, that is yet another mistake they made.
America certainly intended to keep California.
Israel could have kept the Sinai.
If Egypt was not burdened with trying to fight Israel there would have been no reason for them to ever want any ‘treaty’ and no reason not to break one, later on.
They needed cash from America just like Israel got.
Other treaties made by other countries have both sides gaining something or one country is forced to sign as a defeated side in a war.
Egypt lost, but was allowed to negotiate as if they were on a totally equal footing with Israel but they gave up absolutely nothing tangable as an “equal partner”.
Only Israel has made such foolish treaties, no other country has ever done so.
30 years later Egypts treachery has helped bus bombings and terrorists smuggling and thousands of Kaytusha Rockets being fired into Israel.
The fact that those rockets havent killed thousand of people, was
due to G-ds miraculous protection, ‘not’ because Egypt was not aiding and abetting the terrorists, every step of the way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.