I don't know, but we have been the muscle for the UN since the Korean Conflict. Perhaps you have been watching MTV?
Humanitrian issues and world safety are two completely different issues and should be judged accordingly. For the past 1.5 years, GW has had his hands a little full trying to keep all of us alive.
And look what that's gotten us! Perhaps you have been watching MTV? Nope. ESPN classic. I can't stand empty-V!
Now that's one of the funniest things I've read on this BBS in quite some time. Keep 'em coming, AdmrPhilly76!
And that is where you and I differ! Being the world's only superpower brings about awesome responsibilities that should never be taken lightly. Our current President takes them lightly. To him, the world is a comic book. He would rather bomb the world than work together with the world, and that makes him the most dangerous person to ever inhabit the White House.
I don't think bombing Iraq is bombing the world. If your case were true, we'd already have invaded Baghdad, and our bombers would be lighting up the skies over N. Korea right about now. Of course your if you don't like Bush's foreign policy, we can always go back to Good ol' Willy Clintons? Remember that policy? 1. 2 Embassies bombed - Ah, let's do nothing. 2. USS Cole bombed - Ah, let's do nothing. 3. The later World Trade Center bombed - Ah, let's do nothing. If you want to talk about a someone thinking about the world as a comic book, at least Bush has the gonads to open and read it, where as Clinton just kept it closed and had his gonads polished. Funny how so many liberals forget 1992-2000.
So...we're the world's only superpower because we've been the UN's strongarm? I'm sorry, I don't follow....
Funny how people think that complaints about Bush should automatically make Bill Clinton relevant in 2003. This is not a contest. We all (I hope) just want what's best for our nation and the world. Okay, carry on.
That was in responsed to a comment about how we have acted since the Korean War, and look where that has gotten us, not just being the strongarm of the UN. Go back several messages and it should make sense.
I agree, but when you are talking about how someone's foreign policy is dangerous, or something to that affect, you have to look at what was not done and what has brought us to where we are. IMHO, I think we are in the international crisis we are in because of Clinton's inability to act, not because GWB thinks the world is a comic book.
He reads it...he just doesn't understand what he reads. The difference between you and I is that I would rather have a President in the oval office getting his "gonads polished" than one who has America bent over a rail economically and our allies bent over a rail foreign-policy wise, and is ramming both of us where the sun doesn't shine. And differences in opinion are what makes this country great.
I agree, most other countries we can't have this debate. However, history has proven if we do nothing, we'll regret it. You have to agree with me when I say that Clinton could have taken out OBL and didn't, and look how we payed for that? If Bush were such a war-hawk, then we would have attacked Iraq already, and would be gearing up to attack N. Korea. He has shown restraint and has gone to the UN to do things "By the book." The problem is some in the UN, and this country can't see Sadam as a threat.
Using Clinton's statements like this in a situation like this is to add credibility to the argument. One, it shows that this idea of preemption was not an original idea by the Bush administration. They've taken a lot of heat on this as being un-American and blatantly wrong. Truth be told, this was policy long before Bush was president...and was actually acted upon. Two, it shows some unilateral thinking from both sides of the liberal/conservative fenceline. Three, it shows, I think you'll admit, at least some hypocrisy from critics, particularly those within the Clinton administration and their supporters. Clinton said that if Hussein got nuclear weapons, he was convinced he would use them. If he believed that, then it's hard to argue against force for disarmament. Four, it probably shows some other things that i'm not smart enough to think about on my own or i just don't have time to think about right now...
can you imagine the guilt clinton and some others in his administration must have felt on 9/11...could they have known what happened? absolutely not...but you know that some of them still felt a twinge of guilt anyway for failing to bring him in when he was offered up. the same guilt bush would feel if some terrorist act takes place on us soil that can be readily traced back to iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
I agree, and do not think Clinton's own administration is to blame for 9/11. Once again, hindsight is 20/20. But if you have the chance to stop a threat, you stop it. 9/11 changed everything, even the rules of engagment. Too many people on the left don't want to see that. I commend them for their opinions, but for God's sake, I want somone on the left to tell me, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO CONVINCE YOU SADAM IS A THREAT. When do we say enough is enough? How many American civilians dead? 3000? 10,000? 1,000,000? I am not saying war is a good thing, it sucks, I know that. Iraqi citizens will die, Iraqi soldiers will die, US soldiers will die, and probably US civilians will die (wouldn't mind if Geraldo was one of them). However, if we do nothing we're still doomed. People need to remember the attacks during the late 90's on US interests, and 9.11 all happened during a relatively calm time for US involvement in the mideast. These people want us dead at all costs, and if that means changing the rules and striking first, so be it. I'll sleep better knowing our enemies are dead or detained rather than still plotting against us.
Many pseudo-socialist./communist countries think a containment strategy is a voice of reason when I contend countries such as China, Russia, France, etc. never agreed in contributing to the show of force which has in turn compelled Saddam to show a tid for tad game of progress in which these people now say is "working", whatever "working" is... Why the heck does China, and Russia even have a say in NATO procedures...whoever came up with that idea made a serious military blunder...They should show a special episode on the History channel...Saddam is clearly a threat and truely, EVIL. We tried the international game and they won't play it the way you are suppose to play it... And the game is terrorism and their state connections (one in the same to me...) It would be nice to contain terrorism, but you can't do this...bad strategy, does'nt work...You can't do nothing or be defensive...Only one way to go: You have to go after terrorism, you must systematically stop individuals, groups, cells, dictators, nations, whatever it takes... I feel WW3 is now!,...the world against evil,...freedom/choice/democracy against oppression/hate/terror/ We must play this game with endurance and play this game to win...During March, we may see the beginning of the end of terror...This is something I hope for!
