 |
hunchy
Senior Member
 Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
Last edited by hunchy on Oct 23rd, 2004 at 06:13 AM
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:02 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Tptmanno1
Life Ponder-er
Gender: Male
Location: Dreaming...Or am I living... |
I doubt that, but if he did, I would have trashed him as i do bush.
__________________
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:03 AM |
|
|
| |
|
hunchy
Senior Member
Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
You doubt it? Dude, how more plainly could he have put it an an interview. That should show you that they have information and know more than you and know what is right...we're talking about a liberal and Republican stating the same facts...
READ THIS:
The opponents of the Bush administration's possible military action against Iraq make the following arguments: "He's simply trying to finish the job his father started"; "No blood for oil"; "Iraq poses no imminent threat"; "Wars kill innocent women and children"; "Allow the United Nations inspections to proceed"; "Containment works"; "Avoid unilateralism, and proceed only with the United Nations' approval"; and the all-encompassing "No smoking gun exists demonstrating that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction."
But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.
Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."
Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."
Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves."
Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military."
What a difference an administration makes.
Here's the link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=31143
Last edited by hunchy on Oct 23rd, 2004 at 06:16 AM
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:09 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Tptmanno1
Life Ponder-er
Gender: Male
Location: Dreaming...Or am I living... |
I dunno, I wasn't to aware when Clinton said those things, but I do know that:
A) saddam Hasn't had WMD's since '91
B)Clinton did not go into Iraq, Whether he would have or not is irrevalent, he didnt! Maybe CNN is only showing one side, i dunno..
__________________
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:13 AM |
|
|
| |
|
hunchy
Senior Member
Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
Dude, your just trying to deny all the evidence...If it was something bashing Bush, you would have agreed with it right away. I just posted Fox News' link to an article on the same story up above...search for it on google...Bill Clinton has said that. Saddam HAS had weapons before...we all knew that...Bill Clinton said that, Bush Senior said that, and Bush Junior said that. All the Presidents in the past years have stated this...Bill Clinton states that in the article above which you should read because it IS in fact true.
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:15 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Tptmanno1
Life Ponder-er
Gender: Male
Location: Dreaming...Or am I living... |
no what im saying is it's irrevalant, Bush's info is relavent because he's up for re-election. Clintons info would be relavent if he was running for office.
__________________
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:19 AM |
|
|
| |
|
hunchy
Senior Member
Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
It doesn't matter...No matter WHO was President...the same thing would have happened...
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:37 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Tex
Yumsz
 Gender: Unspecified
Location: Tampa, FL, USA |
Bill CLinton did not invade Iraq.
If he did I'm sure he would've exhausted every possible diplomatic means, he would've gotten the UN on board and he most surely would've built up a large coalition with our allies.
Bush did not do any of those things.
He was unorganised, unprepared and he rushed into war without a plan to deal with the aftermath.
Rushed into Iraq like a wild rodeo cowboy.
Going back to the debates, you said that "Kerry was a good debater", but that's all?
He won the debates because his arguments, points and positions were BETTER than Bush's.
As far as terrorism goes, I am not scared of terrorists.
I'm not buying into the Bush administrations fear tactics! They're scaring the American people into voting for them.
Just look at that ridiculous color code system! Will it ever go to blue or green? NO! What's the point of it? To keep America on edge, scared.
You fight terrorism like crime, and the mob. You do everything in your power to make sure that they do not enter America. You keep our ports and borders safe.
Bush has failed in keeping America safe! Al Qaeda terrorists have been crossing into America from Mexico! That is a fact! Bush is not making America safer!
He's spending all of his time and our tax dollrs in Iraq, a war that has nothing to do with terror!
__________________
Last edited by Tex on Oct 23rd, 2004 at 02:41 PM
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 02:38 PM |
|
|
| |
|
hunchy
Senior Member
Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
Another one for Bush. Nice. Bill Clinton did not invade Iraq, but he did bomb places there, and he said that yes, there will be civilian casualties...Did you not read this...
Quotes from Bill Clinton on Iraq:
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
"Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
"The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
You like to say, our candidate or President WOULD have done this or that...well, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq without the U.N.'s support. And just because he's a liberal does not mean he would have gotten help from other places...The countries that did not aid us in the war, simply did not want to go to war because they did not think it was right...we wouldn't have had any more allies just because he wasn't a Republican. Bush, rushed into war? Saddam's had not been listening to the U.N. inspections since Clinton's Presidency. Kerry was a good debater, meaning his speeches was good. He didn't stand firm on one subject...he would personally be for something, but vote against it...He doesn't know what the hell he stands for...Bush does. Your not scared of terrorists...well, its good that you have no fear...however, to be aware of them would be wise...so if a terrorist had a bomb ready to drop on your house you'd say
"I'm not afraid of no terrorist! Bush and his fear tactics" What, do you want him to lie to the American people and say that there are NO terrorists? The color bars? Again, if we didn't have them we wouldn't know WHEN there might be an attack...its called warning...and after what happened on 9/11, how can you say that we shouldn't be warned? We fight the terrorist over seas to make sure they don't come here...AND we keep our borders safe...all of which we're doing right now...and that's why there have been no attacks of recent...whether or not any were planned.
Last edited by hunchy on Oct 23rd, 2004 at 06:02 PM
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 05:54 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Tptmanno1
Life Ponder-er
Gender: Male
Location: Dreaming...Or am I living... |
yea so you accually believe that color bar crap?
Why are you still bringing in Clinton? He doesnt matter at all!
__________________
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:06 PM |
|
|
| |
|
hunchy
Senior Member
Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
You guys were saying Bill Clinton would have done it differently...I'm proving to you that he wouldn't have...and that a liberal and a Republican BOTH saw the threat in Saddam and that he needed to be ousted. I can't say I BELIEVE in the color bar "crap"...but I believe that we should be warned if something is gonna happen...it helps show us if the threat is getting worse or not...It really doesn't bother me...and it does not make me fearful either...
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:10 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Tptmanno1
Life Ponder-er
Gender: Male
Location: Dreaming...Or am I living... |
If the Bush's know somethings gonna happen they will not tell us, because it will institute panic and shit.
We NEVER said the Clintion would do it differently. I said that Clinton was better than Bush Sr. NOTHING about IRaq in that statement. You keep bringing that up.
__________________
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:13 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Imperial_Samura
Anticrust Smurf
 Gender: Male
Location: Lost in her eyes... |
I remember that, but Bill Clintons actions were not aimed at "ousting" Saddam, they were intended to scare him into complying with the UN sanctions requirements.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:14 PM |
|
|
| |
|
hunchy
Senior Member
Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
" We NEVER said the Clintion would do it differently."
Really, then what about when Tex said this:
"If he did I'm sure he would've exhausted every possible diplomatic means, he would've gotten the UN on board and he most surely would've built up a large coalition with our allies."
I believe that's saying he would have done it diferently.
And Bill Clinton totally said that Saddam needed to be taken out of power.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
"Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
"... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:21 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Imperial_Samura
Anticrust Smurf
Gender: Male
Location: Lost in her eyes... |
Perhaps, although there is a great difference of saying that if unchecked he might be a threat and activly aiming to remove him from power. He wanted Saddam to abide by the UN, in order to see he would not use such weapons against anyone. He didn't say the answer was to remove him, only if he wouldn't comply and posed a threat force would be used....
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:26 PM |
|
|
| |
|
hunchy
Senior Member
Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
Dude, Bill Clinton backs the war on iraq because he knew that Saddam needed to be taken out...even if he didn't agree totally with how Bush did it...again, he can't fully agree with Bush, because he's liberal and Bush is Republican...How more clearly can I put that.
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:31 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Imperial_Samura
Anticrust Smurf
Gender: Male
Location: Lost in her eyes... |
Hmm, well if thats true, and I am not saying it is, and he wanted him gone based soley on WMD, then he must have been incorrect like Bush, as it has been revealed that it was a faulty reason to remove him from power, as Saddam had no weapons, nothing with which to threaten the world.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Last edited by Imperial_Samura on Oct 23rd, 2004 at 06:49 PM
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 06:47 PM |
|
|
| |
|
hunchy
Senior Member
Gender: Male
Location: Washington, U.S. |
Dude, Saddam DID have weapons...whether they are still in Iraq or not was the question...he had used them before...read the quotes from Clinton...both Presidents are not lying and its not a coincidence that they would both say that...and Bill Clinton DID say that...
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 07:02 PM |
|
|
| |
|
PVS
Restricted
 Gender: Male
Location: Account Restricted |
most agree that saddam needed to be taken out. even kerry says this, which you probably still ignore. it was bush's unilateral approach, leaving us isolated from the world and forcing us to go it alone that is the issue.
|
|
Oct 23rd, 2004 07:05 PM |
|
|
| |
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
Text-only version |
|
|
KMC Community Forums
