for people who liked bill clinton this question is for you...????

Question

you guys like clinton for his foriegne policies and what he did in bagdad (in 93-95) and kosovow/bonsia in late 90's. is it like what bush is doing in iraq yes i now it been too pricy and too long but we are trying to free a country who has been in lock and key with fear since 1969 since bathes an hussien been in the country.

and if you disagree why?



be nice and non judemental about my spelling and i be nice too

first of all thanks for being nice. however u all missing one important point all of our presidents were doing the best they could and bush is friends with clinton which he ask for help twice with his dad......second remember our founding fathers and the foundation laid out for us we have to fight for freedom. so what if no big wmds but their is alot of cruel and evil leaders out there we need to get rid of and both clinton and bush have done it!!!!!!

Answer 1

I'm not sure I can say I was crazy about Bill, but at this point, I sure like him better than George. There are many countries that are run by dictators and fascist governments. I'm just not real sure how we picked Iraq. Sure, they said WMDs at first, and it was a breeding ground for terrorists, but so are many other countries.

Our brave troops face an impossible job of standing between religous tribes who want to kill each other. It is not getting any better over there, and I really see no solution that will stop what has been going on for hundreds of years in that region.

So, to answer your question, I wasn't wild about Bill's foreign policy, but Bush's policy is much worse. I think it's time to think about America and American's first for a change.

Answer 2

I translate your horrid spelling and grammar as some kind of justification of Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, based on Clinton's actions in Baghdad and Kosovo. Bush unilaterally attacked Iraq based on faulty intelligence, an exaggerated threat, and a false connection. When he brought his case to the United Nations most of the other nations overwhelmingly objected. In Kosovo, Clinton was asked for us to be a part of a NATO action that was approved by the United Nations. In Iraq, Clinton used economic sanctions and strategic air strikes, which were also approved by the UN and seemed to have been effective attested to by the lack of WMD. Saddam Hussein and the Baathist party had full support of the United States during the Reagan administration. We should learn from the successes and mistakes of the past while concentrating on finding a solution to the mess we're in today.

Answer 3

Because the war in Iraq was about Oil and creating a permanent US presence in the Middle East in order to exert more power in the region. The fact that Iraq was under a brutal dictatorship was just a pretext. There are brutal dictatorships in Myanmar, Zimbabwe and a number of other countries in the world--we don’t do anything about them nor have we done anything meaningful to stop the genocide in Darfur (notice that Sudan is an Oil exporting nation).

Think about all of the different reasons that have been stated for this war
1) sadam was linked to 9/11—Not true
2) Weapons of Mass destruction—Not true
3) Sadam was financing al quida—Not true

Only after those excuses did the idea of brining democracy to Iraq come into the forefront. Why is it in our national interest that there is democracy in Iraq? There isn’t any in Kuwait Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Egypt, and Pakistan or in another Muslim country that is allied with the US? Why is Iraq so special? Also it seems as though they don’t want democracy—nobody is making Kurds, suni and Shiites kill each other. They want ethnic cleansing and a re eager to settle scores.

Ironically the most enthusiastic supporters of this war excoriated Clinton for ‘nation Building” in Kosovo (which bush now supports its independence) or ‘wagging the dog” when they bombed Bagdad in 93.

Bush and the neo cons lied to you and me. They are sacrificing more and more good American solders everyday just to save face and “their legacy” and they also have set back the strengths of our armed forces that will take decades to reestablish.;

Answer 4

We are in Iraq essentially by ourselves, the coalition of the willing, didn't cover the costs and most have moved out and the rest, well they sent their best wishes. The Clinton involvement was done with UN approval and involvement.
This isn't. That's why its costing us so much.
Its not our job to go into a country that hasn't asked us to, Iraq had a dictator, a bad one, but there was no underground fighting force or opposition in place, no matter how small, that could take over even been used as an interim government once we lent our help in overthrowing Saddam.
A country must demonstrate that it is willing to fight for change, Iraq never did that, its dissidents all lived outside the country and so they never had in place the respect of those who remained. Don't forget that Russia, Romania and many other nations over the course of time have had equally bad dictators yet those within the country still led revolutions.
Iraq wasn't in that category and wasn't ready to be 'freed' to Western standards. Its only led to a civil war between religious sects. One that will go on for a very long time, as its already gone on for six hundred years.

Answer 5

I think you made the point yourself.

Leaving aside a discussion of why we invaded Iraq.

When military intervention in a foreign nation is considered we (supposely) learned from Nam that among the main considerations are achievable results and a clear exit strategy.

If you remember the Gingrich led Repub congress was often critical of Clinton for what they viewed as an unclear strategy in Bosnia and Somalia.

Even Bush 41 stopped at the point of invading Iraq, because he foresaw the difficulty (impossibility?) of actually governing the country as an outsider.

Then (almost) everyone among our political "leaders" forgot the whole concept in 2002.

Answer 6

I dont know a whole lot about politics, I try not to get very involved in them, cause they are just to complicated to me. But, I do think that gas, and lots of other things were LOTS cheaper before Bush got into office. I know Bush and Clinton both had there pros and cons, but things were more affordable when Clinton was in office. I understand the war and everything has supposedly run these gas prices up, but I hear all the time that these oil companies are making billions of dollars on us!! I dont know...Politics, a never ending battle...Thanks for the question...have a great day!!

Answer 7

Before engaging the military, the President has to have a tangible objective and an exit strategy. Clinton understood that, Bush still doesn't.

Why did Bush declare mission accomplished but have to remain in country and combat ready?

He shouldn't be Commander-in-Chief. He is unqualified and applying our military to unnecessary tasks with disastrous consequences.

Answer 8

I liked Clinton overall but, unlike most of the pro-Bush crowd, I felt free to disagree with him when I didn't approve of what he did. I thought his Iraq pollicies were particularly misguided, as they tended to hurt the common people of Iraq more than the powerful. Of course, as compared to an ill thought out invasion, they seem remarkably sensible in retrospect.

Answer 9

I wasn't a Clinton fan because of his abilities with foreign affairs. I liked Mr. Clinton because what he did for our economy and national debt.

Life was a bit better 10 years ago. There were more jobs and more money. I think Mr. Clinton was one of the best presidents of all time.

Answer 10

I disagree, we went into Kosovo b/c a civil war was occurring that was threating the stability of Europe. As for Iraq, it's a brutal dictator, but there are many all over the world and Saddam/Kim Jong Il/ etc... have no effect on the safety of Europe/America.

Doesn't sound very liberal, I know, but there u are.

Plus, Saddam killed a couple hundred thousand civilians in his reign. We have killed that many in about 3 years. What's the benefit again?