Bill Clinton's Worst Crimes (Bombed Iraq every other day, over one million Iraqis starved)

The Ornery ^ | 1/26/01 | David L. Harten

[WaterDragon]

Don't forget he covered up the terrorist attack on Flight 800 just because he was only months away from a presidential election.

[ValenB4]

Excellent article. The man who died today opposed the sanctions. Sanctions are excessively cruel and hurt first the weakest members of a society.

[chaosagent]

The reason DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years is that it's not very radioactive.

That's what the 'Depleted' part means!

[Gunrunner2]

Hmmm. . let's see. . .a terrorist attack against Americans always generates a rally of support for the president (rally 'round the flag). . .therefore, by covering-up the "attack" Clinton cleverly hurt himself because he didn't want to politicize the "attack" for his own personal gain. . . .don't think so, but maybe you are right.

Give me a moment, I have to make a new tin-foil hat. . .I used the last one to make new fillings for my teeth because the voices kept asking "what's the frequency"

[Gunrunner2]

"Excellent article."

??

While the rest of your post is a good statement of opinion about the Pope and his stance, and a good point to debate sanctions, I'd hardly refer to some waaayyy loony left-wing organizations anti-American screed as "excellent."

So, what's your take on sanctions that were against South Africa?

[ValenB4]

I was against those as well.

[Gunrunner2]

At least you are consistent. Most times I find people supported the SA sanctions but not the Iraqi sanctions.

Problem with the Iraqi sanctions was the Saddam. However, he never received the blame he deserved.

[ValenB4]

Some of those points brought up in the article do not come exclusively from the left. For example, Jude Wanniski, the man most responsible for the supply-side thinking of Ronald Reagan, brings them up as well.

[Gunrunner2]

Yes, but the totality of the article is left-wing, anti-American drival. Selected quotes, absent historical context, alleging nefarious intent, accusations of reckless and wanton military action, baseless claims of DU, emotive but groundless and hardly credible "eyewitiness accounts," the list goes on and on and on.

We have debates on issues, inside the administration and without, in the media, selective public leaks, all part of the debate. Nonetheless, this sort of article is contrived and clearly driven by a deeply-rooted hatred of America. it is not a rationale examination of the issue.

[ValenB4]

I don't like Saddam Hussein and am not going to defend his misdeeds. But he has been disproportionately villified over the years. That first Iraq war should have been avoided. Iraq did have some legitimate complaints against Kuwait, most glaringly its slant drilling under the border, and Saddam thought we had given him a green light to invade. For that part of the world, he was a progressive and would have been content to continue to do business with the US. Gas prices would certainly be lower.

But I don't believe in collective punishment. To employ sanctions hurts an entire population and does breed hatred against us. In the final analysis, the sanctions didn't do any good since ended up fighting another war to get rid of Saddam.

I oppose sanctions in principle. Economic growth is the most effective form of social change because it is peaceful and empowers all members of society, giving them financial power and access to knowledge.

[ValenB4]

I grant that the author may be overly biased in one way. But I'm not certain that the DU allegations are false. The rate of birth defects had gone up. Although they would also go up from a general lack of nutrition and poor sanitation.

[Gunrunner2]

"disproportionately villified over the years" . . . .wow. . .really? I think he has not been held accountable enough for the evil he has done to his people and to the region.

"Saddam thought we had given him a green light to invade. "

Blame American First, not a good thing to do. Look, if he was looking for our permission, we did not give it. Some State Dept bimbo left the wrong impression, but that does not in any way excuse his aim, goal and actions. And besides, do you really think that Saddam would have been convinced not to invade if we said, "Don't do it."

I think not, and here is why: After the invasion and brutalization of the Kuwaiti people, we had the most massive build-up of troop for an invasion since WWII. We threatened him, told him in no uncertain terms that the game was up; leave or be thrown out. He didn't believe us.

So, we are to believe he would not have invaded if he knew we would object--with no forces in the region to back up the objection, while after the invasion we had a massive build-up and he thought we didn't have the will?

I can't see it.

Sanctions were a good thing for the US. Why? because in Operation Iraqi Freedom the Iraqi military was not the same military he had in 90/91. This ensured a quicker victory with less US casualties. Sanctions worked in that regard, and sad that innocents suffered under sanctions, I place the blame on Saddam, and if sanctions saved American lives, so be it.

Realistically, absent having to send in troops, sanctions hardly force changes because the very regimes that warrant sanctions are the very regimes that are least affected by them. Oh, and the french usually find ways to get around them.

[Gunrunner2]

The link I proved is an excellent read regarding DU.

Well researched and documented, the DoD has been studying this for years and found no link between DU and supposed illnesses.

[Gunrunner2]

Link is in Post 4.

[dagnabbit]

Nonsense. Saddam Hussein is responsible for his nation's ills in the wake of the First Gulf War he started.

[ValenB4]

That's not blaming America first. It's blaming a bad situation on a miscommunication. That's how most wars start. Are you really denying that Kuwait was slant drilling under the Iraq border? What self-respecting country would accept that? If that first war had been avoided, there would have been no sanctions and no need for a second war. More Iraqi people would be alive today and there wouldn't be so much uncertainty in the entire region. Because this is still history unwinding, we don't know where things will end up and the final judgment is not set in stone. No one knew at the time what a bad idea World War I would end up being.

[ValenB4]

I browsed through it a bit and read the conclusion. I tend to agree that soldiers weren't exposed to DU in terms of time or quantities for that to be the primary factor.

[Gunrunner2]

"That's not blaming America first. It's blaming a bad situation on a miscommunication. "

Actually, the way I see it you are blaming America first.

You say WE failed in our communication and this CAUSED him to believe we did not object to his plans for an invasion. Saddam is not to be held accountable for his actions? Miscommunication? Perhaps, but Saddam was the one intent upon invading. Again, do you really think a finger wag at him would have stopped him, especially given the fact that a build-up of 500,000 US troops didn't convince him to leave?

"Are you really denying that Kuwait was slant drilling under the Iraq border? "

Wherever did I say anything about that accusation? Never addressed it.

"What self-respecting country would accept that? "

None, and this brings up an interesting logic trail of yours.

It is clear you saying that because of slant drilling Saddam was justified in invading Kuwait.

Therefore, it follows that our objection to his planned invasion would have been unjustified and illegitimate, after all, slant drilling is cause for war and he would be defending his country.

It also follows, then, that our war to kick him out of Kuwait was an unjust war and illegitimate because Saddam invaded for a just cause.

Therefore, as I see it: You blame the US for not convincing him to not invade, while at the same time you argue he had just cause to invade---ergo, any US warning before his invasion would have been unjust, as Saddam had sufficient reason to invade.

You also say that he would not have invaded if we merely said "don't," but you ignore the fact that he did not leave Kuwait when we had 500,000 men built-up to force him out, and again, because of slant drilling he was justified in invading and therefore our war was unjust.

Simply put, you are arguing we were wrong to not warn him off as he had cause, and we were wrong to to force him out because he had cause. Basically, you are blaming America first.

How else to understand your point?

I mean, if he was justified in invading Kuwait because of slant drilling, then no matter what we said would convince him not to invade, and any arguments we made against his invasion would have been illigetimate, as would be our war to throw him out.

Actually, Saddam claimed Kuwait as, what, the 19th Province of Iraq. Saddam was claiming to re-unite Kuwait with Iraq.

What about the Iran/Iraq war?

Was he wrong there?

Is the US to blame?

Saddam wanted to rule the region.

"More Iraqi people would be alive today and there wouldn't be so much uncertainty in the entire region."

Actually, I see much more certainty now than when Saddam was in power. He was clearly intent upon claiming the region as his invasion of Iran, his invasion of Kuwait, and his intent to invade Saudi makes clear.

Saddam was hardly a calming presence in the region.

[Gunrunner2]

Yeah. . .it is a good source, isn't it.

Too bad VIW and others are so blinded by their hatred of America that they simply can't see the truth.

[Gunrunner2]

I'm out of here for the night.

See you tomorrow.

Cheers.