• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"The US was militarily involved in Iraq during the entire Clinton Presidency"

V

Voltaire X

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
- We were enforcing a no-fly zone over parts of Iraq from the end of the Gulf War up until the invasion in 2003.

Operation Provide Comfort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Southern Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Northern Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



- In '96, Saddam launched a military offensive against the city Irbil in northern Iraq. The US military responded by launching at least 44 cruise missiles, targeting Iraqi anti-air defense.

Cruise missile strikes on Iraq (1996) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



- In late '98, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which appropriated funds for Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy. The Act declared that it was the policy of the United States to support "regime change." More specifically, the bill states:

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

The act was later cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002.



- About two months after the signing of the Iraq Liberation Act, in December '98, the US military launched a major bombing campaign over the course of four days (Operation Desert Fox). The justification for this bombing campaign was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their alleged interference with UN weapons inspectors.

Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to degrade Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction. Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said regarding this "The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future." Sounds familiar, right?

Bombing of Iraq (1998) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anyway, the reason I bring this all up is that I'm tired of all the whitewashing of his Presidency. This is just one facet of his Presidency that those who are pining for the Bill Clinton days like to ignore.
 




You are entitled to make your point, and those who disagree with you are entitled to ignore you.

that's the way that it works in the USA.
 
Voltaire X said:
Anyway, the reason I bring this all up is that I'm tired of all the whitewashing of his Presidency. This is just one facet of his Presidency that those who are pining for the Bill Clinton days like to ignore.
Click to expand...

And there is a difference between enforcing a U.N. sanctioned no fly zone and an all-out invasion of Iraq.

I'm not foolish to say that the Clinton presidency was a peaceful one, however, it wasn't the foreign mess we have seen in the past 10 years either.
 
Blackhawk Down, USS Cole, Diplomats killed on his watch with Kenya and the Tanzanian Embassies.....Kosovo and Bosnia. Just to name a few. All on Bilbo's watch.

Yep.....Iraq too.
 
MMC said:
Blackhawk Down, USS Cole, Diplomats killed on his watch with Kenya and the Tanzanian Embassies.....Kosovo and Bosnia. Just to name a few. All on Bilbo's watch.

Yep.....Iraq too.
Click to expand...

And how many troops and civilian died under Bush and Obama?

I get what people are saying when they try and show that the Clinton presidency wasn't one all of peace, but if you want to compare dead, I think GWB and Obama have taken the cake on that one.
 


I was just stating what went down with Bilbo.....course when did you ever hear of all our Special Forces getting lit up at anytime in their past history. All at once.....oh and who was the Peace keepers in Somalia. As I don't think it can be said his presidency was one of Peace.

You know those Pakis.....Which I won't get into Clinton dropping the ball on Terrorism in the first place.
 
That is not suprising in any way.

After the first gulf war it was an official goal of the US to have Saddam removed from power.

In 1998 the US congress signed a bill which designated that the US would actively seek to overthrow the Saddam regime.

And since Saddams Iraq had pritty much broken every single rule of the international conventions that it has signed - every nation did technicaly had a justification to bomb it.
 

Well that's why I said, I don't mind mentioning this to show that his presidency wasn't one of peace, but if this is a "Well a Dem president has cost more lives than...." type argument, that is pretty worthless and is just partisan drivel.

The simple fact is I don't think we are anymore safe with "Homeland Security" than we were without it. Increasing the size of government is not the answer to our security troubles and as shown has only increased the troubles along with increasing the size.
 


Oh I wont disagree with you there.....I tore into Bush over the creation of that Waste of Space. But really both parties ended up kissing that Sunni and Saudis ass. The strategy was wrong from the get go on dealing with the ME, and Africa. As well as the Sectarian divide that has spilled over into Africa and throughout the ME. As well as to some parts of Asia.
 
So you don't like actual history and reference you prefer the surgar coated one provided for you by the main stream media and lefist in academia?


shrubnose said:
You are entitled to make your point, and those who disagree with you are entitled to ignore you.

that's the way that it works in the USA.
Click to expand...
 
The entire OP is a strawman. Bush Sr. fought a major land war with Iraq, and people remember his policies fondly. The difference is that daddy didn't **** it up. He went in, protected American oil interests, demonstrated overwhelming conventional superiority with absolutely minimal casualties and ignored the advice of fools telling him to go to Baghdad. It produced positive outcomes with minimal costs, which was the exact opposite of what happened when Dubya had his war.

I actually disagree with Clinton's policies with regards to Iraq, but they can't even touch the damage done by Jr. or Obama. Compare the dollars and lives spent on no-fly zones to OIF or Afghanistan.
 

I'd prefer Clintons brand of intervention to pretty much all of the Presidents preceding him since Carter.
 
CalGun said:
So
you don't like actual history and reference you prefer the surgar coated one provided for you by the main stream media and lefist in academia?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I prefer to believe what I want to believe and let others believe what they want to believe.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…