baggio202 Posted April 10, 2003 Author Share Posted April 10, 2003 The bombing of Iraq took place as a response to the breakdom of UNSCOM. The bombings in the african and asian countries took place because of intelligence on the whereabouts of BinLaden and other Al Qaeda operatives. Kosovo was done in conjunction with other European states, with the understanding that the genocide of a people is inherently wrong. Here genocide can be properly used because there was indeed a push in Kosovo to kill off non-Serbs. We had the backing of NATO, our military goal was limited, clearly stated and transparent. Maybe you didn't see it that way and I can understand that. A lot of people were under the impression the Clinton had something to hide. Perhaps he did, but the Republican push to delegitimize the presidency, and there was a genuine push in the last three years, made it seem as if anything Clinton did was a reaction to moves by Congress. I'm pretty sure, given his foreign policy team that this wasn't true. like i said..i give him the benefit of the doubt because if you remove president clinton from the equation and look at the situations , in each one use of force was justified...i just wish alot of those on the left would give president bush that same benefit ... i guess you could find alterior motives for any president if you wanted to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 like i said..i give him the benefit of the doubt because if you remove president clinton from the equation and look at the situations , in each one use of force was justified...i just wish alot of those on the left would give president bush that same benefit ... i guess you could find alterior motives for any president if you wanted to... I never said what Clinton did was right. But just because Clinton broke the law makes it okay for Bush to do the same thing somehow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 like i said..i give him the benefit of the doubt because if you remove president clinton from the equation and look at the situations , in each one use of force was justified...i just wish alot of those on the left would give president bush that same benefit ... i guess you could find alterior motives for any president if you wanted to... I'd love nothing more to feel that the intentions are the best... but when I see reports coming out of think tanks, both liberal and conservative... and see international relationists who I respect, both liberal and conservative questioning the real motive about what this war means and its underlying foreign policy... its hard for me to think this president is being genuine. This dissent at an intellectual level is something that Clinton did not have to face in his presidency. Maybe its because Bush said in an interview that he doesn't feel he has to explain anything to anybody. Or that he's said repeatedly he feels that he was born to serve in this time (called by God). Maybe its because the Bush administration have had different stories on why this war has to take place every week. First it was because of a nuclear capability that didn't exist. Then it was because of a link to Al-Qaeda that has never been proven, or for that matter convincingly argued. The it was about WMD which we have yet to find (which calls into question how much of a threat his stockpile really is) Then it was about the liberation of the Iraqi people. The last one has seemed to be the only valid one. But the question was never answered "Why is the noble goal of Iraqi liberation considered to be a serious enough threat to national security that it would require massive invasion and long term occupation." Maybe its because he promised long term help for Afghanistan that has already disappeared. Last year, he signed a law allocating over 3 billion dollars for Afghani aid over four years. In his budget submitted to Congress earlier this year, it was listed as unfunded. I don't know if he's actually lied. But it seems that way. And over things far more important than personal behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPinStripes Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 APU alot have took off Reports are that about 100,000 maybe have taken off. That still leaves a few million in the city that didn't cheer and celebrate. holy s***. anything to make the bush look like a nazi huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 APU alot have took off Reports are that about 100,000 maybe have taken off. That still leaves a few million in the city that didn't cheer and celebrate. holy s***. anything to make the bush look like a nazi huh? No, it just shows American propaganda. Whenever the pictures of Iraqi civilians etc. being hurt, all everyboyd calls it propaganda but when it's like this, everybody just shuts up and thinks it's the truth? This is propaganda. How come there are no far shots of the crowd? Could it be that there weren't that many of them there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.