The policy was regime change, and it WAS essentially the same. The difference was in the manner in which the policy was implemented. The Clinton government went at it in a feckless manner, and Bush sought to use an invasion.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?
Of course not … which is why no one, including Sam, has said it.
To repeat: 1) He is saying Clinton advocated the same goal (all questions of means aside) of regime change; and that is indeed a fact.
But the act legitimizing that policy specificly forbids the use of US military force, as quoted to you on the first page of this thread. So Clinton was “feckless” in that he did not contravene the expressed will of Congress? Should he have been more like St. Ronnie, and brushed such quibbles aside, and then would have avoided being adjudged “feckless”?
And if, as you suggest, Bush’s policy was an extension of Clinton’s policy, why should a seperate resolution, with all its tiresome harping on “threats”, be necessary? Wouldn’t it have been simpler to merely strike out that second clause? Unless, of course, those threats were essential to the justification of that policy. Which threats, I hope you will recall, proved to be…lets be kind…exaggerated. No, lets not be kind: total bullshit.
Because it’s nonsense?
This is what I get for trying to discuss the war again. It’s hopeless. We apparently don’t even speak the same language. You’re going to read what you want into anything the opposition says.
Oddly enough, this more or less describes what we have done, at least as far as normal law enforcement activities are concerned.–it was probably the single most
prejudicial attribute of the early period of the occupation. As Dr. Demento remarked,
"freedom is messy, and free people sometimes do bad things…’(like loot, rape, or just strip all the copper wire out of government ministries faster than a crackhead on his way to the metal recycler)
Something that I think was missed in the “reasons for invading” portion of this debate:
Of course, I’m not counting Iran’s counterattacks into Iraq as invasions; clearly Iran was defending itself. I’m also not counting non-invasion attacks, such as Iraq launching missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel during Gulf War I. Then I’d have to consider whatever secret Iranian military operations may have taken place (like supporting terrorists in Lebanon and Palestine, or maybe fighting in Afghanistan). Invasions are the greatest form of aggression one nation can take against another, and Saddam did it twice in recent history.
The point is clear: Saddam was the Middle East’s wild card, unpredictable and dangerous. And recently too.
While American was always steady, sane and reliable. Is that the pemise you would like to try to sell?
America = Saddam. Is that the premise you would like to try to sell?
You remind me of a poster on another board. And another debate on the war. Either you’re the same guy, or all debates go like this…
Which one, in the past three years, has posed the greater threat to global peace and stability?
Saddam.
I don’t like the man or the job he’s doing, but comparing George Bush to Saddam Hussein is ridiculous. Not the same ballpark; not even the same sport.
Of course not. I did not mean to compare Bush with Hussein as men or as leaders. But, comparing the relative threats posed by Hussein’s Iraq and Bush’s America to global peace and stability:
Iraq: Small (California-sized) semi-industrialized Third-World country. Ruled by a megalomaniac with a recent history of naked territorial aggression against his immediate neighbors – but, since the Gulf War, effectively contained, embargoed, sanctioned, and no longer a significant threat to anyone but his own people.
U.S.: Giant, fully-industrialized nation with superpower status and the world’s mightiest military establishment, not contained or containable by anybody (yet). History (not so recent) of naked territorial aggression against other countries. History (rather more recent – just ask any Central American or Caribbean) of imperialistic military intervention in other countries. Intensely patriotic and moralistic population that, since 9/11, has been in a general if sporadic mood of righteous anger and lust for vengeance. Led by Bush, who in his foreign policy decisions apparently is listening to (1) corporate interests, especially oil, who are excited at the prospect of virgin new fields for massive profits; (2) ideological neocons who have a vision of global American military hegemony combined with global democratic-capitalist revolution; (3) evangelical Protestants who – actually! – believe the End Times scenario of the Book of Revelation is being played out in the Middle East and the U.S. government should be playing a role in hurrying it along. Bush, who has trashed the network of diplomatic and military alliances we have been carefully nurturing ever since WWII and committed the U.S. to a course of we’re-the-top-dog-we-don’t-give-a-fuck-what-the-world-thinks unilateral action.
Simpler test: Who is it who people all over the world seem to regard as the greatest threat to global peace? Not al-Qaeda. Not the Taliban. Not Iran. Not Hussein, when he ruled. Ever since the idea of the Iraq invasion first was floated, it’s been the U.S. Fairly disinterested parties seem to share this general opinion. The Europeans – who, in terms of direct and immediate threat, obviously have more to fear from terrorist violence than from U.S. military aggression, marched in the streets and demonstrated against the U.S., not Hussein. Do you think we’re right and the whole world is wrong?
Well there is Congress, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, oh, and all those people who live there who get to vote. Seems to be lots of constraints. Guys like Saddam have no constraints on them and the way they act. Only outside influences can affect them. Or would you prefer the USSR to rise again to provide a counterbalance? Why would you trust a country like the USSR to be that counterbalance rather than your neighbour when he goes into the voting booth?
None of which seems to have made much difference, from the global-peace-and-stability perspective. In terms of foreign policy and military adventures, Bush does what he wants and gets away with it. (At least, for the past three years. For the next three and half – well, we’ll see.) And the peoples of the world know all about these “constraints.” Apparently, they don’t think that, in the absence of any effective external constraints on our country’s actions, they can rely on the American system of rule of law and the goodwill of the peaceloving American people to rein in our leaders’ aggressive impulses. Once again – is it the case that we’re right, and the whole world is wrong?
I guess you have to define what actually the US is doing to cause this global instability? I don’t see it in my travels. The US aren’t causing the issues in Yemen where I work. It is the Yemenis themselves. This is the case in most countries around the world, I suspect. Yet, many use the US as a convenient scapegoat, I think.
Could well be that the whole world is wrong. What makes you think they may be right? You’re having a tough time even keeping up the moral in your own people to stay the course in Iraq. It doesn’t seem to bode well if you want to build an empire with that sort of backbone. I wonder that others around the world don’t recognize this and breath a sigh of relief. If it was the former USSR unnoposed they’d really have something to worry about.
Because Iran is very clever, and Bush is not.
American actions in the world may not be without their problems, but it has, in the last 15 years, tried to do good, for good or reasonable intentions, and worked towards ending violence or removing oppressors, be it in the Balkans or the Middle East.
Sometimes the meddling goes awry, true. But with people like Saddam Hussein, there are no good intentions, no goals towards making life better for people or ending violence. Saddam’s motives were based around malice. Comparing the two is ludicrous.
I also dislike the statement that Saddam was ‘only’ hurting his own people. Is Iraqi suffering not worth our consideration? Do the Iraqi people not matter, not merit effort and sacrifice to help?
I hope no-one argues that last point by saying “then we should have helped these people, or these people, etc, etc,”. This argument, that the US should suddently do everything, usually comes from people who initially argue the US shouldn’t meddle at all. Well, I’d rather the US try to help a few areas, rather than return to the apathy and isolationism of 70 years ago. Besides, why shouldn’t the US take care of a mess it helped create, by deposing the dictator it used to support?
because we fucked it up and created a greater mess than the one pre invasion.
good intentions (if such there are…) with catastrophic outcomes are lower than dogshit.
to avoid obfuscation: the intentions underlying this iraq adventure were pure imperialism, linearly connected to the 1922 British Invasion, and collaterally related to the 1953 mossadegh removal
there were no “good intentions” involved.
Well, I haven’t traveled in the ME, but based on what I see in the (American) media, it seems that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has upset things in general in the Middle East much, much more than the existence of Hussein’s regime (post-Gulf War and the subsequent containment) was doing.
One unforeseen consequence: The Iranian leaders are now patiently waiting for the U.S. forces in Iraq to wearily declare victory and pull out – so they can move in. (Not necessarily by force of arms – but they might not need to, to expand their sphere of influence.) http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/862285741.html?MAC=d5f60557952afaf68d79f86a7bb8b077&did=862285741&FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&date=Jul+3%2C+2005&author=REESE+ERLICH&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&printformat=&desc=Iran's+waiting+game