Why did Clinton keep up the bombing of Iraq after the first Gulf War had

[KlatooBNikto]

ended? Apparently, he was trying to protect the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South of Iraq from reprisals by Saddam Hussein.To say that it required non stop bombing for twelve years and starvation of millions of Iraqis is to defy belief.

That his partner in this venture was none other than Tony Blair needs to be kept in mind because this gives us a clue to the continuity of the policy that has finally matured in the second Bush administration.

This is one of the reasons we Democrats need to be wary of the two party system as it stands.There appears to be no difference between the parties.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowknows69]

17. ew n/t

[EDT]

2. I thought alot of the bombings were for when Iraqi anti-aircraft

batteries would try shooting down American and British aircraft that were flying patrols enforcing the no-fly zone.

Were there alot of bombings of non-antiaircraft batteries?

[Paleocon]

4. Why did we need to enforce a no fly zone

over someone elses country...

Our arrogance knows no bounds...

Let a foreign power try to enforce a no fly zone on the US and see how fast we respond...

But it's ok when we do it to someone else?

Once again it goes to show... "Might makes right."

[EDT]

7. The no fly zones were to protect the Kurds from being killed

by Saddam's air force, who had a history of bombing and gassing them.

[Paleocon]

9. Oh.... So now we are responsible for righting every wrong in the world???

That's what got us into this mess in the first place...

Plus we gave him the gas originally...

:crazy:

[EDT]

10. So if you inherited the situation, as Clinton did, you'd let them die.

[Paleocon]

13. No...

I think he did inherit a bad situation.

But his inheriting a bad situation didn't stop him from creating more bad situations.

That's the problem with an interventionist foreign policy.

[Razorback_Democrat]

15. Because we "won" the war

and to the victor go the "spoils" of war.

It was actually a policy of containment, to keep Saddam in a box so he didn't destroy the Shi'ia, or the Kurds.

Saddam was not a good guy, no matter what Reagan said!

[Paleocon]

32. It's amazing...

Good guy today, bad guy tomorrow...

Hard to keep score...

:silly:

[Sara Beverley]

12. We had no business flying over anyway. It was illegal no-fly zone just

as the invasion was illegal. In our case, "might makes right" plain and simple. We do it all because we can, not because it's the right thing to do.

[EDT]

20. So to pose the same question to you-

If you were in Bill Clinton's situation, you'd let the Kurds die?

[Sara Beverley]

28. Let the Kurds die? Do you know how many Iraqis the Kurds killed?

But on the matter of the no-fly zones, there were no Kurds in southern Iraq. The Kurds were trying to gain autonomy from Iraq. If NC or TX tried to gain autonomy from the US, what do you suppose the course of action would be by the US government? If history serves me right, the last time that happened the government (whether you thought it was legitimate or not) fought a war and killed thousands of US citizens. Was Abe as bad as Saddam?

[EDT]

35. So.... you're saying the Kurds were the bad guys?

and not worth protecting? How about UN sanctions- were they unwarranted?

[Demit]

3. I am reading Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and it's

opening my eyes to a lot of things. I never followed national politics, not to mention global politics, till the last year or so. Always found local politics more interesting. But since the runup to the invasion of Iraq I have realized what is really having the bigger impact on my life, and I am catching up through a lot of reading.

Yes, more than once in reading this book I've had the feeling "A pox on both your houses!", regarding Repugs and Dems. It is giving me a look at just how dirty and self-serving so many Dems have been. I am suspecting more and more that they are two sides of the same coin. We, the citizens--we are mere pawns.

The moment of truth for me will be the Social Security issue. If the Dems fold on this issue, I'll know once and for all that they are not my party any more. This is stunning to me; I am a dyed-in-the-wool Dem. But if they don't fight for the biggest Democratic idea of the last hundred years, I'll know they are some other party, and I'll look around for the people who are willing to stand up for true principle, and I will fight for them.

[w4rma]

5. SS is definitely *the* litmus test. (nt)

[bpilgrim]

14. if you make more than $87,500 you don't pay SS tax

that needs to CHANGE.

if EVERYONE paid their fair share SS would be solvent for another 100 years.

it is SIMPLE and easy to understand, shoot most people aren't even aware of this.

psst... pass the word

peace

[KlatooBNikto]

16. I agree. SS taxes are very regressive. There must be a way to reduce

the rate on low income tax payers and increase the rate on high income earners and also increase the wages subject to SS taxation.That alone would ensure the viability of our system, whic, I do want to repeat, is not broke and does not need fixing for another fifty odd years.

[coda]

21. They still pay 12.4% on that $87,900, roughly $10,900.

[bpilgrim]

22. though 0 SS taxes

that needs to CHANGE to fix the SS 'crises'.

peace

[coda]

23. That 12.4% is the SS tax. They pay roughly $10,900 in SS taxes, max.

They just don't pay it on any income above $87,900.

[bpilgrim]

24. D'oh!

my bad, thank you for the correction :toast:

peace

[coda]

26. I should have gave a better explanation in my 1st post.

Brevity's the soul of wit, not bbs posts. I'm either too long or too short.

Sorry 'bout that, bplilgim. :hi:

[w4rma]

27. Absolutely. (nt)

[graywarrior]

6. Been feeling the same way myself for a while

Even tho I wanted Kerry to win, the response to the election loss has just confirmed to me that the political democrats are very much like the repubs.

[OneTwentyoNine]

8. Damned if he did,damned if he didn't.......

Clinton didn't put the no fly zones in effect,Bush Sr did after the Gulf War. The military merely enforced what Bush set up. I guess Clinton could have tried to cancel the NFZ,can you imagine the outrage?

One bombing Clinton did was after the plot to assassinate Bush Sr. was uncovered and proved to be real. I don't know what it really accomplished but Clinton ordered the strike.

[bpilgrim]

18. we bombed them nearly EVERYDAY for a DECADE

when i think of all the RADICAL policies this regime has been able to enact i no longer have any sympathy for the old 'can you imagine the outrage, IF clinton would have did that'.

CLINTON SOLD US OUT especially with NAFTA, he broke his word to the UNIONS and weTHEpeople.

from the newrepublic...
March 27, 1995

"The nationalist-populist revival in our current politics did not come out of nowhere. Two years ago, during the presidential campaign, it fueled the presidential race. The theme of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign was "Putting People First," identifying American national interests with "those who do the work, pay the taxes, raise the kids and play by the rules." In his economic program, Clinton promised a host of populist and nationalist reforms--putting able-bodied welfare recipients to work, curbing excessive salaries for ceos, closing tax loopholes on foreign companies in the United States, ending tax incentives that reward U.S. companies for moving abroad, discouraging former U.S. officials from lobbying for foreign firms, attaching strong labor and environmental standards to NAFTA and getting tough on trade talks with Japan. These kinds of promises were integral to what the public believed when they thought of Clinton as a "different kind of Democrat.""


"Under pressure from the Business Roundtable, Clinton and U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor withdrew their demand for commissions that would enforce strong labor and environmental standards under NAFTA."

source...
http://www.tnr.com/archive/1995/03/032795.4.html

peace

[Hippo_Tron]

29. All the more reason that the invasion was stupid

I know you disagree with Clinton's Iraq bombings but I think the fact that we were dropping a bomb on them every day for a decade shows that we certainly weren't igonoring the situation.

[ooglymoogly]

11. the diff is about a three trillion dollars and 150,000 lives and counting

the difference between respect and derision. the difference between intelligence and idiocy.

[tabasco]

25. Thanks for pointing out that small difference ....

"We Democrats" is a sure sign of a freeper or disgruntled green.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. He had to look "tough on defense" to appeal to the middle.

Too bad about the dead civilians. Just "realistic" politics, doncha know.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. To enforce the UN sanctions, the NFZ, and keep the inspectors in

I agree with people here that his actions were questionable but I know that one things is for sure. The fact that we were bombing Iraq every day for a decade is all the more reason that the concept of Iraq being a threat enough to the US for an invasion is just plain ludicrous.

[EmpireWeAre]

33. But, But, But Iraq Was A Threat!!

Just look how the mighty Iraqi military was able to defend a third of it's airspace from the weak and vulnerable U.S. Air Force.

No wonder we had to invade, Iraq was about to launch a second hand MIG and bomb all of our cities!!:nuke:

[bpilgrim]

36. we IMPOSED the 'no-fly-zone' AND everyone wanted SMART SANCTIONS

after a decade of bombing, inspections and sanctions that were killing the people including over 1/2 a million children.

but i, and surprisingly enough, even Colin Powell and the WH, apparently, agrees about Iraq not being a threat...

2001: WH Admits Iraq Contained; Creates Agency to Circumvent Intel Agencies

In 2001 and before, intelligence agencies noted that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained after the Gulf War. In fact, former weapons inspector David Kay now admits that the previous policy of containment – including the 1998 bombing of Iraq – destroyed any remaining infrastructure of potential WMD programs.

OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: "As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997…and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA's verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States."

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received.

source...
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

D'oh!

but then they changed their minds...

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States…The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence."

same source...
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

shoot they even got all the media to edit out the NO-FLY-ZONES from their headline graphics... guess they don't think we are complete idiots after all ;->

and who can forgive or certainly forget Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gross comments...

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

:hi:

peace

[Darranar]

31. "Regime change" - that is, pro-US dictators, rather than...

nationalist ones.

[youngred]

34. Just because Bush hated him doesn't mean Saddam was a good guy

The need was felt to keep pressure up on him, and the bombings only occured when US planes were targeted by Iraqi radar. Saddam was not a good man, and the US should have pursued regime change, but from within by lifting sanctions and encouraging opposition candidates to rise up rahter than blowing through without allies and forcing change from without that only created resentment.