Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Feb 21st, 2003, 01:59 AM        Sort of....
One thing I think that gets castly overstated is the idea that this is Dubya's issue. As if it was a none factor for the last ten years, which is not the case. Clinton deployed troops and authorized air strikes several times during his term, most notably in 1998.

Regardless, I read some stuff about Clinton that lends some credibility to the matter. Ken Pollack, who was a member of Clintons foreign policy team, observed that during the Clinton administration, ironically enough, Al Gore was one of the main proponents of action in Iraq. Ultimately, Bill decided that he had to choose one or the other. Either devout resources to Iraq, which would likely not hold popular support, or hope limited containment with all it's flaws would be sufficient, which would thereby allow him to focus his assets on other issues (ie. Somalia, Bosnia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

In other words, the idea of regime change in Iraq is not new. It's been in various stages of activity since the first botched overthrow attempt immediately following the cease fire in GW 1. While Bush has certainly advanced the cause, and no doubt is taking advantage of a perceived public support following 9/11, the idea of regime change has been floating around the government since Dubya was managing baseball teams.
Reply With Quote
 



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:53 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.