http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1151&slug=Cheney%20Iran
"Asked to name his mistakes in planning the war in Iraq, Cheney said he had not anticipated how long it would take the Iraqis to begin running their own country.""
"Cheney, in an interview hours before he and President Bush were sworn in for a second term, said Iran now tops the list of the world's potential trouble spots."
Why are we always bringin up the USA's power politics? What about Asia, Europe (Germany in particular)?
Feel free to post.
Good God, don't the Neo-Cons in USA have enough wars in their hand right now? I feel sorry for average US Joe and Janes that have to put their lives in jeopardy for their political agenda.
Lives in jeopardy? Whose life is in jeopardy here?
And don't worry... Just because Iran is on the list doesn't mean we're on the verge of invading them. Same with NoKo. We'll give diplomacy a chance.
The soldiers on the front-line. Ambushes and bodily health don't mix.
I doubt the US will invade Iran, but I also thought the invasion of Iraq was farfetched. At this point in time I wouldn't put anything past the current administration (perhaps that's the point). Bush & co are hardly paragons of negotiation.
>The soldiers on the front-line.
They are not "average US Joe and Janes."
>Bush & co are hardly paragons of negotiation.
Keep in mind that Bush gave Saddam more warning before Shock and Awe began than Clinton did when he attacked Iraq in '96. And he also tried much harder to get the UN on board with him before acting. People tend to forget that.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/gulf.strike/index.html
> They are not "average US Joe and Janes."
Fair enough, although I think >>4 meant GI Joe/Jane.
> Keep in mind that Bush gave Saddam more warning before Shock and Awe began than Clinton did when he attacked Iraq in '96.
I'll admit I'm not qualified to comment on this since in 1996 I was... preoccupied with other things. However, my understanding (and the readings provided) indicate that Clinton fired missiles into Iraq in 1996, not a whole-scale invasion.
My gripe with Bush extends beyond Iraq though. I recall the moment I started disliking him: a press-conference on television where it was quite openly stated that they did not give two hoots about the rest of the world and the Kyoto treaty, on grounds of threats to competitiveness. Ignoring the Kyoto debate, Bush most certainly was pursuing a unilateral policy until the saber-rattling began.
Diplomacy entails negotiation. Negotiation entails compromise. I cannot recall Bush compromising on much on the world stage.
> And he also tried much harder to get the UN on board with him before acting.
Saying "agree with us!" is not negotiation.
>However, my understanding (and the readings provided) indicate that Clinton fired missiles into Iraq in 1996, not a whole-scale invasion.
Clinton attacked unilaterally and with little warning... exactly how people say Bush attacked when he did not.
Kyoto has its own issues... I won't go there in this thread. Suffice it to say that it wasn't a square deal for America and before he left office Clinton was leaning toward pulling out too.
>Saying "agree with us!" is not negotiation.
What about saying "agree with yourself?" The UN was not following through on its own threats to Iraq; that was the issue. They barked for twelve years, but they refused to bite.
Also, Clinton's attacks on Iraq were justified by Iraq's ignorance of UN mandates.
There is a tremendous difference between invading a country and bombing a country. Clintons missile strikes do not relate to Bush's invasion except that they both involved the same two countries.
Technicalities. The point is that people bend over backwards to fault Bush for "rushing" into a "unilateral" war, when Clinton's attacks were even more so.
I'm so glad you're not really secretary of state. =)
Could you imagine what the world would be like if the sos thought that the difference between long-range precision bombing and occupation was merely a lateral shift in tactics?
I am addressing your point directly by the way; your argument is based on a false premise. Long range precision bombing does not fall into the same class of things as long-term military occupation. An American president is responsible to his citizens and to them alone; Clinton didn't directly endanger any of his citizens, Bush has gotten some number of his killed.
Then we don't seem to be talking about the same thing. I'm looking at things from the perspective of Democrats and liberals who find Bush's actions repugnant, not what Bush actually did.
...and I'm saying that it's perfectly fine for Democrats and liberals to find Bush's actions repugnant, and not find Clinton's actions repugnant, because they're not morally or strategically equivalent.
I supported the recent invasion of Iraq, and still think that leaving would be a tremendously bad thing, but I can't understand how you can say that if you damn an invasion that will last for years and kill or grievously wound thousands of your own citizens, the only people you're responsible to, for being unilateral, you must also damn a 4 hour long missile strike for being unilateral.
Here's an analogy. When you were in highschool, and you wanted to stay out 2 hours past curfew, you'd call or you'd get in trouble. If you came home 15 minutes after curfew without calling, you wouldn't necessarilly; some times asking permission is unnecessary, when it comes to something which will not impact your responsibilities. Clintons missile strikes had essentially no impact on American lives or the world economy, so why should he have asked anyone?
Why did I support the invasion of Iraq? Well, primarily because I felt certain that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but also because I happily support the overthrow of any dictator. Is it an inevitably bloody process? Yes! But how many hundreds of thousands of his own civilians did Saddam kill since the Iran/Iraq war? Perhaps I'm just an optimist though.
All right, point taken. Thanks for being one of the more sane debaters on this board.
> Thanks for being one of the more sane debaters on this board.
I resent that remark.
>> 19
thats ok, because i think albright was talking to me, not you, anyway.