Hillary Clinton attacked by Cindy Sheehan

[pilferk]

you give a quote from 1999. hilarous. cause clinton had been dealing with saddam and taken several actions against him for the previous 6 years. just more spin by you.

You said he called for a regime change.  That's when he did it, publically.  It was the publicized "policy change" that you refer to in your original post.

How is that spin?

Or, if you were referring to a seperate time when he called for a regime change, perhaps you could actually put it in context and post some proof?

As for other actions...did he invade? No.  He furthered economic sanctions to ensure that Saddam was NOT A THREAT, by strangling their capability to be one.

[Surfrider]

you give a quote from 1999. hilarous. cause clinton had been dealing with saddam and taken several actions against him for the previous 6 years. just more spin by you.

You said he called for a regime change.? That's when he did it, publically.? It was the publicized "policy change" that you refer to in your original post.

How is that spin?

Or, if you were referring to a seperate time when he called for a regime change, perhaps you could actually put it in context and post some proof?

As for other actions...did he invade? No.? He furthered economic sanctions to ensure that Saddam was NOT A THREAT, by strangling their capability to be one.

and conducting a a few bombing campaigns

[pilferk]

and conducting a a few bombing campaigns

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

From the man himself.

The bombings were conducted to pre-emptively prevent him from being a threat.? They were to prevent him from rebuiliding his WMD program.

In addition, I've not said he wasn't a threat to his neighbors.  He was.

And he was certainly dangerous.

But he was not, ever, a direct threat to the United States of America.

[sandman]

and conducting a a few bombing campaigns

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

From the man himself.

The bombings were conducted to pre-emptively prevent him from being a threat.? They were to prevent him from rebuiliding his WMD program.

In addition, I've not said he wasn't a threat to his neighbors.? He was.

And he was certainly dangerous.

But he was not, ever, a direct threat to the United States of America.

first off, i've never said he was threat to the U.S.

second, this discussion is going towards arguing the definition of a "threat", which i will not do.

[pilferk]

first off, i've never said he was threat to the U.S.

second, this discussion is going towards arguing the definition of a "threat", which i will not do.

Well, here's the post you responded to from Richard Nixon:

"We should have let the inspectors do there work. They would have determined there were no WMD. Bush and his cronies used the tragedy of 911 to further their agenda. The Neo-cons wanted to go into Iraq since 1996. 911 was the perfect excuse. The American public was scared and needed someone to blame. Darth Cheney, Rummy, Wolfawitz(sp) and jr jumped at the chance to exploit America's fear. Sadam was never a threat.

The US was wrong to go to war, PERIOD! The rational for going to war was WMD. Remember that? And now we have this big mess. 2000 American soldiers dead, 30,000 Iraqis dead. Not to mention the millions on both sides that will suffer a lifetime of psychological damage. This war was a mistake period.

There are lots of dictators in the world. Why aren't we spreading democracy all over world? Answer me this, do you think we would have gone into Iraq if they had been sitting on top of Olive Oil?"

I think the inference of the threat being to the US is pretty obvious, but, just to clarify, the poster later said:

"Saddam was never, never, never, never, ever a threat to the US. Axl Rose is a bigger threat to national security than Saddam was. "

Aside from the hyperbole, he made it quite clear what he was saying in the intial post.? And MY post was directly after that.

So, you either misunderstood his post, and argued my post after his clarification (which was clearly and specifically that he wasn't a threat to the US) anyway, or you did understand his post and purposefully misstated his intent for an easy tear down point, or you were just wrong.

You can take your pick.  I rather think you just misunderstood the original post...but that begs the question why you continued to argue the point after it was clarified.

[SLCPUNK]

Thing about u is, U use to be a real cool guy, but somewhere in your crusade to save the universe u became a condescending prick.

U feel that everyone should bow down to the almighty SLC and believe what u believe, and if not u actually take it personally and let it affect relationships.

U need to realize that everyone has their own opinions.

U arent right, I am not right, when it comes to things such as politics and religion, there are no definitive right or wrong answers, only various opinions.

U need to get over yourself and thinking u have everything figured out and that u have all the answers and start realizing that the entire world doesnt reflect your opinions and those people are no less or no more intelligent or right than u are.

You have two choices in life D.

One is to work as hard as you can on every level. In regards to most things, you can never learn enough. Mostly because things are always changing. You can read until you drop, and still only have scratched the surface. It actually (unless you enjoy that sort of thing) is work to most people. I do not expect everybody to be like me, nor agree with me. I am hyper focused on many things. Working a lot and also reading a lot. I read non stop, surf the net non stop, eat non stop, and sleep little. I am hyper focused on life and information.  Current events, and history require you to read.  That is why most people go to choice number two.


Choice two, is to be lazy. Choice two lets you sit in front of the tube and get swayed into dinner table discussions. It is easier to let somebody else be mad about something (that you don't really know too much about ) for you, and back that person. That is what most of America does, and that is also why (IMO) Bush got elected again. Most Americans don't know the difference between a Ba'thist and a Bathtub; they don't read. The thing about choice number two, is it is the easy way. Easy to not read, easy to let somebody else do the thinking for you  (doesn?t mean they are right, they are just thinking for you.) Easy not to think too critically.

You put words in my mouth, then insulted me. Period. Hey, if you wanted to disagree with me, fine, be my guest, knock yourself out. But to come here and say things I said that were totally false, and then tell me what a jerk I was for "saying" them, is a bit too much. Also disappointing, because it means you have decided to go with choice number two.

I should not have to defend myself against your silly comments and will not. I obviously don't think that anybody should "bow down to me." And that is the kind of thing I am talking about. You seem to be reading my mind, and speaking for me, making up things I say or think. You claimed I was against the police in one thread. False. You said I was against our military. False. You said I never made my opinion known on an exit Strategy. False. Then you insulted me because I wasn't giving you the answer you wanted. Real bummer to read something like that.

 I prefer to keep personal things to PMs, but you have decided to lay things out on the table, and personally I think you have really overstepped the bounds of good taste. I also keep my private life just that: private. I felt that I had gone above and beyond to help you and give you advice on certain things in your life. I always wrote you back and tried to help you. Tried to be a good friend to you. For this I wanted nothing. Not one thing. All I wanted to do was help a guy that seemed to be looking for answers. You could have come on here and disagreed with me all day long on Iraq or anything else. I would not have cared. But instead you came on here and exercised choice number two. You lied and put words in my mouth and insulted me. I was very patient with you on this. More patient then I would have been with anybody else. Many of your posts I ignored altogether, letting them slide off my back. But the last few ones were downright nasty and uncalled for; and for that I called you an asshole.

I remember Axl talking about an review once to his crowd. He said something like "If you don't like it, that's great, I don't care, but if you are going to lie........". That is how I feel about anybody really. Disagree with me all day long, I'll make my case, you make yours. But don't lie and put words in my mouth; that is low. Considering our history together, I find it more insulting that you would turn on me in such a way. Disapointed too, because you could have taken choice one and argued me that way. But you took the easy way instead.

Good luck.

[sandman]

first off, i've never said he was threat to the U.S.

second, this discussion is going towards arguing the definition of a "threat", which i will not do.

Well, here's the post you responded to from Richard Nixon:

"We should have let the inspectors do there work. They would have determined there were no WMD. Bush and his cronies used the tragedy of 911 to further their agenda. The Neo-cons wanted to go into Iraq since 1996. 911 was the perfect excuse. The American public was scared and needed someone to blame. Darth Cheney, Rummy, Wolfawitz(sp) and jr jumped at the chance to exploit America's fear. Sadam was never a threat.

The US was wrong to go to war, PERIOD! The rational for going to war was WMD. Remember that? And now we have this big mess. 2000 American soldiers dead, 30,000 Iraqis dead. Not to mention the millions on both sides that will suffer a lifetime of psychological damage. This war was a mistake period.

There are lots of dictators in the world. Why aren't we spreading democracy all over world? Answer me this, do you think we would have gone into Iraq if they had been sitting on top of Olive Oil?"

I think the inference of the threat being to the US is pretty obvious, but, just to clarify, the poster later said:

"Saddam was never, never, never, never, ever a threat to the US. Axl Rose is a bigger threat to national security than Saddam was. "

Aside from the hyperbole, he made it quite clear what he was saying in the intial post.? And MY post was directly after that.

So, you either misunderstood his post, and argued my post after his clarification (which was clearly and specifically that he wasn't a threat to the US) anyway, or you did understand his post and purposefully misstated his intent for an easy tear down point, or you were just wrong.

You can take your pick.? I rather think you just misunderstood the original post...but that begs the question why you continued to argue the point after it was clarified.

actually, his original post does not say threat to america. maybe that's what he meant. but i'm not a mind reader.

also, like i said already, WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. i believe saddam was a threat to U.S. interests. you don't. that's fine. i'm not gonna argue this. in the end, none of us know for sure. therefore it is an opinion. and arguing in these threads are no longer any fun. (which is quite depressing).
 

[pilferk]

actually, his original post does not say threat to america. maybe that's what he meant. but i'm not a mind reader.

also, like i said already, WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. i believe saddam was a threat to U.S. interests. you don't. that's fine. i'm not gonna argue this. in the end, none of us know for sure. therefore it is an opinion. and arguing in these threads are no longer any fun. (which is quite depressing).
 

No, but he clarified his post before I posted. Thus, when I made the comments I did, it was obvious I was talking about his "clarified" post.  You took issue with it anyway, to argue the point.  The question still remains: why do that? 

And you're right, we can agree to disagree.  You are perfectly entitled to hold any opinion, baseless or not, that you wish.  I provided you with quantifiable, verifiable evidence that bolsters the opinion I hold.  Evidence you can't really refute.  Yet, you still wish to maintain you opinion.  As you said, we can certainly agree to disagree.....

[sandman]

this question is for anyone....

IF saddam had the capabilities, do you think he would have attacked the U.S.?



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
   - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

[Dr. Blutarsky]

this question is for anyone....

IF saddam had the capabilities, do you think he would have attacked the U.S.?



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
? ?- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Saddam had no love for the US. I think if he had the capabilities to strike the US, he would use it to blackmail us or even use it. He had the means to use chemical weapons & used them against Iran and his own people. He invaded Kuwait.

Overall not a good guy.

[pilferk]

this question is for anyone....

IF saddam had the capabilities, do you think he would have attacked the U.S.?



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
? ?- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Depends.? Mostly on exactly what capabilities he has in the "what if" scenario.

If he had the capability to deliver a payload that could wipe out large sections of the US and completely cripple our ability to respond? Maybe.  Even then, given the worlds response, I'm not sure he would have.

But, if you're saying he simply had the same material and weapons he did have, but with longer range? Nope. Never happen.? Not unless we backed him into a corner and left him absolutely no escape route that would actually preserve his hide (Sun Tzu, The Art of War, "Always leave your enemy an escape route").? That's why we found him in a hidey hole rather than in his palace giving his troops direction.

If you look at the way Saddam dealt with the US, expecially since the first Gulf War (when we pretty much proved to him that the threats of using force were not empty), he yelled, screamed, swaggered, boasted, cajoled and needled us, but, when push came to shove, ultimately backed down.? I think he would have used his weapons capability to do the same kinds of stuff.

He knew that any direct attack on the US would have been a death sentence for him if we were left with any ablity to respond.? His own hide was far too important to him for that, I think.