A simple Question

I don't support any military action "without reservation." And I don't know how I'd have reacted. I'm opposed to preemptive wars, but if it was an attack on Al Qaeda in retaliation for the Cole or something, I'd listen to the arguments. Just like I did before supporting (with reservation as always in matters where innocent people are killed) the Afghanistan action after 9/11.

By the way, I have a much bigger problem with the way the admin acted after 9/11 than before WRT the Clarke stuff.

 

basso by the same token.

If Clinton had launched an attack on Bin Laden during an impeachment hearing what would have happened?

 

LOL, lock the thread!

 

It depends on what evidence was shown. I do admit that my mind would not have been able to forsee a 9/11 attack and what it really meant. That attack was so senseless that I would never have imagined it. If the administration had shown, what the plans were, how deadly they were, and what steps had been taken to stop terrorism on a scale other than massive invasion, I think it's safe to say I would support it more than I do the Iraq plans. Whether or not I would actually approve would only be a guess at this point.

But I will say that MC Marck has a point. When Clinton launched those missles(which according to Bush's man David Kaye finished off some of Saddam's WMD) he was accused of the whole wag the dog scenario. What would you have said if he decided to send troops into combat? Would you accept that it was right? Would you bring up the fact that he was sending troops in to die dispite the fact that he avoided the draft when it was time for him to serve?

 

I would not support a unilateral, pre-emptive strike. If a real coalition of nations including other nations in the region, Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle East, were to support and participate in such an action, I would be more open to a pre-emptive action.

 

At that point, I would have been suspicious, but willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that within your hypothetical eventually all of the intelligence would be shown to be legit, the conclusions not slanted for political gain, and actions taken in a way that most folks could agree were in the best interest of the country, my support would be much less conditional. Also, one would assume that under this hypothetical, the Bushies would consult with and be assisted by the Clintonites and present a unified front regarding terror and Afghanistan, as well as working with allies.

 

I think there's a reasonable middle between doing nothing and declaring war. Instead, Bush did both.

 

And what a freaking horrible day for Bush: he gets (partial) blame for Sept. 11, gas prices reach an all-time, and it's announced that Medicare will go bankrupt in 15 years.

 

That raises an interesting question, without multilateral support, would an invasion of afghanistan even been possible?

All of our forces there would have to be basically airdropped in or out from very long range (provided that we got the necessary overflight clearances from Pakistan-- if not we would have pretty much been screwed unless we wanted to start a shooting war with them)

Still doable, but much more difficult.

 

Yeah well we've got the Kobe case and the NCAA to take our minds off of it right?

 

There's no such thing as a simple question that uses 60 + words to ask it...

 

basso;

That's a good and tough question.

A full scale invasion I wouldn't have supported.

That said there were many things else that could've been done like funding for the Northern Alliance, more sanctions and very public pressure on the Pakistanis to drop for the Taliban I would've done. Those were ideas that had been discussed in the Clinton Admin and could've been easily done by the incoming GW Bush admin.

I will give them the benefit of the doubt that possibly no one could've stopped 9/11 that said what about the record after 9/11? True they went after the Al Qaeda and the Taliban yet why did GW Bush start talking about Iraq even before the Taliban had been defeated? If Al Qaeda was so important why did the Admin pull key special forces personnel from the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to go to look for WMD in Iraq?

The problems in the record of the GW Bush Admin. on terrorism have more to do with than what did they or the Clinton Admin do prior to 9/11. While I can forgive them for not doing enough prior to 9/11 that still doesn't mean that there wasn't enough done and I will still hold them accountable to what they did after.

 

basso, I'm a science fiction and fantasy fan, but I don't see why I would make that particular speculation.

If, upon coming into the final three months of the most contentious election in american history, the last major act of the Clinton Administration was to launch a pre-emptive war upon Afghanistan, citing the taliban's support for al queda, and the latter's attacks upon the Cole (for which clinton had already "responded") and other attacks, as well as noting certain intelligence "chatter", how would each of you have responded? All the usual suspects, that is.

I would have supported the Clinton Administration. How about you?



(all credit to mc mark for basically saying the same thing, although I'm discounting the Clinton "scandal")

 

basso after thinking about it last night I may have seemed a bit flippant and it's not polite to answer a question with a question.

So to your question.

I probably would have been totally against anything this administration had done after it took office. I wish I could dig up some of the threads that were around during the 2000 election. I was screaming that Bush should not be elected and that he would have us in a war within two years of his administration. I was proven correct (but under very different circumstances I guess)

So I guess I'm guilty as charged. I would have been screaming "I told you so!"

 

I would have supported invading Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban before I would have supported what the administration did instead (give $43 million to the Taliban in April of 2001).

I do not support unilateral preemptive wars. In this day and age, "might makes right" is a formula for disaster. I supported Afghanistan after 9/11, partially because we had the support of the entire world for our actions and partially because the Taliban was harboring bin Laden. I believe that unless we have IRONCLAD evidence that a country is a DIRECT, IMMEDIATE threat to the US, we are not justified in invading that country. If we have international support, I am OK with peacekeeping and humanitarian actions, but Iraq does not fit those criteria.

 

Basso,

Do the right thing, do not worry about the poll, opinion, or at least worry about it later. The question itself screams Bushism. Don't you think?

 

On another day when the Bush administration shows it greatest weakness, it's total inablility to communicate.....

Had Bush allowed Colin Powell to take the lead role, articulate the position than The Taliban was a rogue organization that had usurped control of Afghanistan and was allowing Al Queda a base from which they could launch a campaign of terror on the world,
I think he might have garnered the support of the American people and a large contingent of the world community for a 'police action' to bring the perpatrators to justice. But attacks outside the United States and on military targets with limited casulties frankly may not have generated the level of outrage required for Americans to commit their sons to combat.

 

Care to give the full story on just who exactly the money went to?

 

the first act of the Bush Administration was to launch a pre-emptive war upon Afghanistan

First, the war would not be pre-emptive, since they already drew first blood.

Second, making the case for this type of war with our allies and Pakistan would require a great deal of diplomacy, which Bush 43 does not possess. IOW, Bush 43 would have f*cked it up. His father, Bush 41, could have pulled it off.

Third, a war against the Taliban in the spring of 2001 may have not stopped 9/11. it would more likely increased the terrorists' resolve.

Carry on.