IF! IF! IF!

If Bush 41 was allowed to take care of business in Iraq in 1990....

If Clinton had taken care of OBL .....

If you had an once of objectivity, you would see how nutty your post is.

Once I had an ounce of objectivity, but u took it away from me.

DrewDad wrote:

Once I had an ounce of objectivity, but u took it away from me.

Good. You are unable to handle it. You tried it once, and you blew it.

If Bush 41 was allowed to take care of business in Iraq in 1990....

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different ?- and perhaps barren ?- outcome.

woiyo wrote:

If Bush 41 was allowed to take care of business in Iraq in 1990....

You keep spouting this nonsense as though it were a universally recognized truth. In 1998, George Herbert Walker Bush and Brent Scowcroft published A World Transformed. This is what they had to say about the issue of invading Iraq and occupying Baghdad:

Quote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different ?- and perhaps barren ?- outcome.

You have absolutely no basis for your contention, and only make it because you think he should have invaded Iraq, yet you still admire him, so you seek to make excuses for his failure to live up to your expectations. G H W Bush did not believe that Iraq should be invaded and occupied--get over it.

(Editing Note: Edited to include the complete text of the original paragraph without ellipsis, from page 489, A World Transformed: Bush, George and Brent Scowcroft, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.)

If Bush 41 was allowed to take care of business in Iraq in 1990....

If Clinton had taken care of OBL .....

If you had an once of objectivity, you would see how nutty your post is.

Good point--and your oft repeated contention that Bush "was not allowed" to occupy Iraq could not be sillier . . .

Setanta wrote:

Good point--and your oft repeated contention that Bush "was not allowed" to occupy Iraq could not be sillier . . .

That's correct. Just a silly as the initial post.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

If Bush had not sent our military off to fight the war in Iraq, they could be in the US helping the hurricane victims to safety.

You mean like the 10,000 that are there now and the 11,000 more that the Pentagon has ordered in to help with the rescue and relief operations.

Quote:

If Bush had not spent the US's treasure on the war in Iraq, we would have the money to relocate the displaced people and to restore their cities and towns.

Are you saying that we dont have the money?
It seems to me that everything that can be done in the 2 days since the hurricane is being done.
Why do you have to have federal money to offer to help?
As for restoring the towns,no amount of money can get it done overnight.
In the case of NO,they first have to stop the water coming in,then they can restore power to pump it out.
You are trying very hard to blame this on Bush.Are you saying that he can order hurricanes or otherwise affect the weather?

Quote:

If Bush had not done any of these things, we would be in a better position to deal with the hurricane, or a massive earthquake, or other natural disaster.

We would???
What about if Kerry had won?
Would that have stopped the hurricane?
Why didnt the Clinton admin spend the money to strengthen and raise the levees?
This scenario was predicted to happen for years,even when Clinton was President.
This is a disaster,and for you to try and blame Bush shows just how petty and ridiculous you are.
Bush could not have prevented this anymore then he can stop the tide.

Quote:

How I hate that man! BBB

I really dont think he cares what you think about him.
But if it makes you feel better,I will make sure he doesnt run for re-election,ok.

Your right he really doesn't care what we think. I hope he let's real Americans handle the trouble in Louisiana. He f**ks up everything he touches.Thats a fact

I will ask again...
How much money did the Clinton admin allocate to strengthen,and raise the height of the NO levees?
This disaster has been predicted for at least 30 years. (emphasis added)

Amigo wrote:

Your right he really doesn't care what we think. I hope he let's real Americans handle the trouble in Louisiana. He f**ks up everything he touches.Thats a fact

I will ask again...
How much money did the Clinton admin allocate to strengthen,and raise the height of the NO levees?
This disaster has been predicted for at least 30 years.