Clinton, WMDs, and Iraq. Who knew what, what was done, the UN.. (1 Viewer)

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,718
Reaction score
6,835
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
:hihi:

Since it was brought up in another thread. Not an attempt to give "equal time," but I think there's some legitimate speculation and discussion on this issue. Feel free to bring up Bush, as by way of comparison.

I knew Clinton ordered some bombing mission is 1998, and there were the usual wag the dog references.

:shrug:
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
31,904
Reaction score
17,884
Age
48
Location
Houston
Online
He was also accused of wagging the dog when he went after Bin Laden and summarily criticized for the cruise missile attacks in Sudan. That was the thing with Clinton, he was always roundly criticized for using the military and now folks love to go back and criticize him for not using it enough. Of course the reality is he took a number of shots at Bin Laden that were ruined because of a leak in Pakistani intelligence.

The 1998 bombing was really about the Chinese. They went in and upgraded "communications equipment" for Saddam. What they really did was improve his anti aircraft weaponry targeting ability. The bombings were ordered to remove that new capability and hit a few other strategic locations to keep Iraq soft for the eventual invasion. See, the dirty little secret is we knew as far back as 94 we were eventually going to invade. I was in intel back then and one of our primary missions was keeping Iraq "soft" for invasion. This meant red flagging anything that could eventually prove a problem so we could take it out on one of the numerous occasions we had to drop a few bombs to teach Saddam a lesson.

The other dirty little secret, and a big reason I still support the invasion, is the 1st Gulf War never really ended. Iraq firing at our planes was a weekly occurrence in violation of the cease fire agreement. We all know about all the violations of the sanctions against him by numerous nations and companies (some from the US).

However, Clinton was hamstrung to deal with Saddam or Bin Laden in many ways. The thing about a Democracy is you need popular support to go to war. In our case you also need Congress for anything outside of a quick military action. Clinton couldn't get either because he was under constant partisan political attack and investigation.

Of course to the average TRC he just didn't do anything just because. It had nothing to do with the vindictive absurd political climate his political opposition created.
 

CitySaint

SR is my life!
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
10,765
Offline
The same group that was pushing Clinton to attack Iraq are the same group who pushed George W. and they were probably there back in 91 with his father.
 
OP
RebSaint

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,718
Reaction score
6,835
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Yep. These airstrikes I think were at least based on intel at the time, disabling suspected biological and chemical weapon capabilities.

My question is, true Clinton ordered airstrikes against suspected chemical and biological plants/targets.

Were the airstrikes successful? And how much of an effect did it have on Hussein's capability to deliver whatever he had left in 2003? And if Hussein was such an instable individual and regime to his neighbors, why didn't he launch his last stores against American forces?

We know Hussein was depicted as having the ability to launch attacks, and it was imperative that the United States invade. Why weren't the WMDs which were supposedly left, launched on American troops?
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
31,904
Reaction score
17,884
Age
48
Location
Houston
Online
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Yep. These airstrikes I think were at least based on intel at the time, disabling suspected biological and chemical weapon capabilities.

My question is, true Clinton ordered airstrikes against suspected chemical and biological plants/targets.

Were the airstrikes successful? And how much of an effect did it have on Hussein's capability to deliver whatever he had left in 2003? And if Hussein was such an instable individual and regime to his neighbors, why didn't he launch his last stores against American forces?

We know Hussein was depicted as having the ability to launch attacks, and it was imperative that the United States invade. Why weren't the WMDs which were supposedly left, launched on American troops?
Hussein wanted people to believe he had WMD. He didn't believe America had the resolve to take him out and the fear of WMD kept his enemies, foreign and domestic, at bay. As such he furthered the idea that he had them. It was part of the Saddam mystique everyone feared. 9/11 galvanized the American public behind the President and Saddam's game backfired.

The reality is we destroyed most of his weapons stores in the first Gulf War. Also, Clinton was being pushed to invade. Had it not been for the persistent political assault he was under he probably would have in 1998.
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,502
Reaction score
2,308
Offline
My own opinion on the situation however flawed it may be is that IF Saddam did not have those weapons, he was looking to get them at some point down the future. Lets not be naive here. A guy of his nature was constantly scheming for ways to get back his power and some esteem he had in the 80's and early 90's. He was power hungry and even people who opposed the Iraqi war admitted it as such. They knew, at least the reasonable ones, his nature. The problem was of course with any sanctions is that their are always loopholes in the system. People will always claim their iron clad tight when the situation in reality is much more loose and open to speculation to whether they really work. Take the sanctions we have on North Korea right now. In theory it may work and it may have an effect but their are always ways to get through it. Loopholes, little side steps in the fine print people will always look to be advantageously using. Saddam as one such case. He got through it and did it pretty easily after a while, the reasoning being he had allies in the French and some in the British circle who had business ties and wanted to make a quick buck dealing with his regime. Some call it being ambivalence or not caring at all.


To make sanctions work, you need the whole world behind it or most of the world so to say like South Africa in the 80's and apartheid. people care about racism and racist attitudes in a place that has been oppressed for hundreds of years . that sells better to make an impact for change. I mean really people do a good portion of Americans care about Darfur or oppressive regimes in Myamamar? Not really, not really. They care about their own lives, its all about them, what I will do this morning when I wake up and go to work. Is it selfishness or maybe being a bit of a hypocrite? Perhaps, but its human nature. Its why when we see homeless people on the streets some people will think their dangerous or trash or despicable undesirables. Human Nature is Human nature and thats why I can feel cynical about it all at times. People don't care unless its concerns them and maybe they will care if their pushed into action because they feel its the right thing to do or thinking they are making a difference.

If you realize that, then you will see why the Bible is very accurate on human nature and how we really are, don't take this as a religious argument, just look around you, take a good long look, I don't think human beings are by nature good, I think we can be corrupted, made to someone else's will easily, and we are easily fooled by a convincing argument that we think make sense. People will always be quick to point out that we are not perfect entities , but its just rhetoric that overlooks the situation.

I know some of you will disagree with me on this and thats okay. I kind of expect you to be skeptical of all this but I think thread brought it out in a certain way
 

DadsDream

Dreaming of a SAINTS Super Bowl!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
41,540
Reaction score
6,187
Location
Hancock County
Offline
I'm just a web content editor. I don't know anything about this subject. Explain it to me please. :)
 

1yearOlder

The jig's up!
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
1,137
Reaction score
55
Offline
See, the dirty little secret is we knew as far back as 94 we were eventually going to invade. I was in intel back then and one of our primary missions was keeping Iraq "soft" for invasion.

The thing about a Democracy is you need popular support to go to war. In our case you also need Congress for anything outside of a quick military action.
How many times do you hear a member of congress or the President himself refer to the U.S.A. as a Democracy ( majority rule ) , knowing full well that we are a Constitutional Republic and not a -
Democracy/psyc opt. word - ?

None the less ... interesting .
 

1yearOlder

The jig's up!
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
1,137
Reaction score
55
Offline
interesting + interesting + interesting =

interesting .
 

Saintshizzle

G.O.M.A.B
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
16,463
Reaction score
13,669
Offline
Baby boy (1y/o),

If you do not expound on your "interesting" thoughts, you are close to:

threadjacking + spamming =

Trolling....?

Let us know what you are thinking behind that one excessive word of yours. This is one of the more interesting (no pun) threads on the board for me. Not often do people actually go in-depth with the Clinton administration decisions (or indecision, depending on your lean) on Bin Laden, iraq etc. It's mostly off-the-cuff comments without much thought, and usually negative.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom