If Clinton did not get a BJ from Monica would we be in Iraq?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 17 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]513752[/snapback]</div>

Please, tell me where i am wrong. what did clinton do after wtc I, USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc?

Also i would like you to explain to me the plan and the strategic goal of clintons "missile attack" - jeez, the best i can remember he hit some tent or something like that. and while you are at it explain to me how, why he let OBL go several times?????

this is all in an effort to make me less ignorant of this situation - my perspective is that clinton royally messed things up, totally gave OBL and his boys who declared war on us (is this a fact or not) free shots and empowered them by not responding with force or in fact responding at all except for a missile volley they knew about before we even launched the sucker - i mean - what damage did that missile do, and while you are at it, once you explain to me the goal of that missile strike follow it up with why nothing else followed up on that unless i am wrong on this too in that that missile strike was a complete failure -- i mean if it were important enough for our CIC Pres Clinton to shoot a missile at something there must have been a reason and a plan and backup plans to achieve what that goal was....

thanks, looking forward for the education you are about to give me.....

and i am still waiting for my other history expert to answer some very simple questions for a person of his intellect and knowledge...... or did he run away for good?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 04:46 PM) [snapback]513683[/snapback]</div>

That's my point, the coran do not tell muslims to kill americans, that's the fanatics, the problem is not the muslims, it's the fanatics...
Islam is a religion of peace and love, the problem is that the fanatics open their mouth larger than the others and take control of populations, we had the same in our history when the kings were given their powers by god, the church wasn't all clean...
In France Americans came to free us from Nazis, and we are gratefull for that,
But why did you came in iraq ?
in Iraq americans were surprised to not be welcomed as heroes... to iraqis you were invaders, not saviours, where are the weapons of massive destruction Bush said he known where it was ? Did they find even one ?
The only thing Iraqis are seeing is that Americans came to take control of iraq petrol and steal it from them... amricans are not interested in iraqi's freedom, but in their petrol....
Also there is a lot of collateral damages, a war is never clean, so then when fanatics declare Jihad against americans it's easier for them to find people who would die as martyrs....
The church and state separation is the way we have in France, since some time now...,
I'm not sure if it is the case in america : the president still swear on the bible, what if he's not christian ? what if he's jewish or muslim or even worse atheist, on what will he swear ? and also the famous "in god we trust"...

Now a change of Point of view... how would you react if someone declared war to your country to "free you" from GW Bush ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]513760[/snapback]</div>

First World Trade Center Bombing:

1998 Embassy Bombings:

4 of the suspects, Wadih el Hage, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali, and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed were arrested in 1998 and have been serving Life without Parole since their trial ended in 2001. Three others have been held in the UK since 1998. Another was arrested in and is in Guantanamo.

USS Cole:

Of course, 3 months after the Cole bombing, we had a new president who could have made an immediate statement. But he didn't do anything either.

Just curious ... have we caught the guy responsible for 9/11 yet? It's your favorite kind of question. A simple one that requires a simple answer.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(George W. Bush @ Sep 13 2001)</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(George W. Bush @ Sep 17 2001)</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(George W. Bush @ Mar 13 2002)</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 16 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]513549[/snapback]</div>

I don't think the Monica Lewinski affair really had anything to do with Bush's electoral vote win. You have to remember that the past two elections saw President Clinton elected with less than 50% of the overall vote due to a strong third party candidate. Splitting the vote of that candidate evenly among the major candidates would have seen President Clinton elected with a slim majority, IIRC. President Clinton was still popular at the end of his Presidency, and probably could have won a third term if it was legal.

Al Gore threw away the 2000 election with his "alpha male" performance, heavy sighs and pontifications. He never connected with the average person. If we wanted a heavy breathing, condencending know-it-all for President we would elect some boorish professor. But that's not who we elect; we elect "regular guys" like Bill Clinton or professional managers like Reagan, Carter or Bush Sr.

But your question may have merit for another reason. Because of its experience with Oklahoma City, and the direct threats on President Clinton's life, the Clinton Administration was certainly more focused on terrorism than the new Bush Administration. Our actions after 9/11 would be determined by the people Al Gore decided to keep on. 9/11 would have still happened, and Afghanistan would have been invaded with about the same result. I think we would have waited on Iraq, although Bill Clinton asked for, and received, congressional approval to use force against Iraq to effect "regime change". I think Al Gore would have waited for Iraq to go critical before intervening.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 05:51 PM) [snapback]513724[/snapback]</div>

Yep we sold nuclear powerplant to Iraq, not sure for Iran but it's possible, those were civil nuclear powerplants,
We also sold french Fighters to Iraq (mirage F1), but american did also sell weapons to Iraq, and also to Iran, they also helped Saddam being at the head of Iraq.
Also they trained Osama Bin Laden to fight against russians in afghanistan and funded him.... so not everyone is clean here... I'm not saying that the french have always been clean and i've never agreed to everything the French are doing or did...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 12:14 PM) [snapback]513737[/snapback]</div>

I do indeed wrap myself up in a cocoon to protect myself from wasting time with people arguing strictly from emotion or for sport (trolling). It is quite self-serving and gives me time for work, family, church, and even a hobby or two. My opinion of you is generated from your posts in this thread, where you have repeatedly made easily provable false statements and brought nothing interesting to the table. I would sooner argue the dangers of rent control with a hippy from Berkeley than foreign policy with you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tchou @ Sep 17 2007, 10:34 AM) [snapback]513780[/snapback]</div>

France has more of a historic role in Iraq, and once things are stabilized there, should be more involved with helping the Iraqis. Iraq has never been a supplier of oil to America, not even now, but it was a main source of oil to the EU. Our major oil supplier in the middle east is Saudi Arabia, so when we were asked to repel Saddam's move against Kuwait, as Iraqi troops were massing on the border between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, we did respond. I'm not sure if France was involved in that war, but I suspect not with your historic position as an ally of Iraq. America's terms of surrender for the Iraqis was predicated on them dismantling their WMDs and allowing open UN inspections. We enforced the "no fly" zones to prevent Saddam from killing more of the Kurds in the north, and to protect his neighbors. The Iraqis routinely engaged in "acts of war" by firing on our planes, but because they didn't come close to shooting them down, we did not retaliate. The UN weapons inspectors believed they were being obstructed, so further actions were called for, especially after the consensus was ... even by the French intelligence service ... that Saddam was amassing WMDs. Right before the current Iraq war, the UN inspectors said they were being given cooperation, but America and the others in the coalition went ahead and launched the invasion.

We import the biggest amount of oil from Canada, then Mexico, and then farther down the list is Saudi Arabia. We do not now, nor have we ever, gotten Iraqi oil. But oil is what the modern world runs on, and you and I will starve without oil. The world will not be able to allow any dictator to control oil and starve us to death, so it is in our interests to ensure that oil is kept on the open market where any of us can buy it. Iran does have a case that British Petroleum "stole" its oil assets, but America has never been in that position. All of our oil expertise in Saudi Arabia has been to build their infrastructure, and they have sold oil on the open market.

As to freedom of religion, didn't France recently approve a kind of "dress code", outlawing the veil for Muslim women? Isn't France where the young Muslim men are rioting, overturning cars and burning them on a periodic basis?

America still has less than 3% Muslim in country, while the European countries are approaching much higher minority populations. When Muslims, with their higher birth rate, are more than 50% of the population in France ... in something like 2050 .... do you think your freedom of religion will increase, or decrease?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Sep 17 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]513804[/snapback]</div>

Classic!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tchou @ Sep 17 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]513780[/snapback]</div>

I suggest you read the koran for yourself and study their beliefs in handling themselves with non-believers, with infidels, with women, etc.

The problem is that those countries dominated by Islam never separated mosque from state - think about that for a moment.

We came to help france for lots of reasons, one of which was a friend in need - it was my hope that the French would remember that one - seems to be forgotten easily.

We went into iraq for lots of reasons, almost like trying to free them from the bonds of slavery. think about this.... after pearl harbor FDR/America attacked algeria and morocco first... why?????? in part that is also an answer for iraq.

the wmd's are part of it - the french intelligence thought they had them too. in fact france built a nuclear reactor for saddam two decades ago. but wmd's are but a small part of the going to war.

if we wanted to steal iraqi petrol we would we could we could steal anyones petrol and nobody could stop us. fact is we did not - it is being sold on the open market. and i wish we would steal some to lower the gas prices here

please do NOT tell me what 300 million are interested in in iraq - and then claim it is only oil. it is like us going to frances help and saying all we wanted was your cheese or women - both of which i would take in a heartbeat you do a tremendous disservice to America by that thought and statement. especially with almost 70,000 dead americans buried on french soil doing something for france that france could not do for itself. so be care what you say about my country - there are those here who agree with you, there are those who would be very upset with you too.

your worry about our separation of church and state is unfounded - we are alive and well here thanks.

no need to free us from gw bush - if we wanted to we could get rid of him ourselves - i think you guys should worry about your own home front and you immigrant problem, your birth rate, your dissatisfied youth, your slums, your economy, etc, etc. at least you guys put a good government into place recently.

btw someone did declare war on us last decade - Osama Bin Laden did - problem was clinton did not pay too much attention to that then. i guess anyone can declare war on us - they should do so at their own risk - we can play with the best of them on any front, at any time, and to any extent we choose to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 17 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]513805[/snapback]</div>

Very nicely put. The irony will be that the Middle East will operate under normal conditions and the base of islamic terrorism will be western europe - france, england, germany - what is the most common name of a male child born in france for the past 5+ years.

tell you something else. i find it disturbing that the french do not believe anything is worth dying for - not their belief in religion, not their love of country - nothing.... and the largest growing segment of their population believes dying for their beliefs is good and honored and is supposed to be done to further their "peaceful religion". my question is, do we come to the aid of france if they cannot handle this problem themselves from within?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]513824[/snapback]</div>

Not to generalize or anything..... I thought we were done with the freedom fries rhetoric.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Sep 17 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]513804[/snapback]</div>

you could simply try answering my three questions. real simple. for somebody of your intellect and experience should be a no-brainer. give it a shot. or just sit down. i do admire your ability to construct no-lose equations for yourself. must be a liberal or democratic thing. three little questions.... so small..... so easy.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 17 2007, 08:05 PM) [snapback]513805[/snapback]</div>

You seem not to be very well informed...
The veil is not outlawed, the fact is as the school is laic (don't know the word in english, but it means not related to religion) the students are not allowed to bear religious signs, at least not too visible, as jews are not allowed their kipa at school muslims are not allowed their veils, but everywhere else it is not forbidden, only at school....

Also for the riots, nothing here about muslims, only young poor people upset about unemployment and inequalities, but your medias seems to have qualified them as muslims... this has nothing to do with islam...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 17 2007, 08:05 PM) [snapback]513805[/snapback]</div>

You seem not to be very well informed...
The veil is not outlawed, the fact is as the school is laic (don't know the word in english, but it means not related to religion) the students are not allowed to bear religious signs, at least not too visible, as jews are not allowed their kipa at school muslims are not allowed their veils, but everywhere else it is not forbidden, only at school....

Also for the riots, nothing here about muslims, only young poor people upset about unemployment and inequalities, but your medias seems to have qualified them as muslims... this has nothing to do with islam...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]513760[/snapback]</div>

Basically Clark states that counter terrorism was Clintons highest priority.While Bush ignored warnings and was incompetent and not concerned.Clark is the only authority on counter terrorism who worked in both administrations and if your statements vary from his ,then you are wrong.
Why dont you educate yourself by reading Clarks 9/11 testimony or his book .If you dont , you are ignorant.
Did you not realize that the CIA and FBI did not confirm any AlQueda responsibility for the Cole bombing until Feb 2001?How was Clinton to respond when he was no longer in office at that time.It was then Bushs responsibility and he did nothing.Rice testified to the 9/11 investigation that they didnt want a "tit for tat".It showed how low a priority terrorism was in the Bush administration.
I believe that the Republican party is responsible for detracting from Clintons ability to kill Bin Laden by hounding him with a frivolous impeachment.Then claiming Clinton was "wagging the dog" when he launched an attack.Talk about unAmerican activity.The Republicans actions were a disgrace and were treasonous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tchou @ 2007 09 17 12:08) [snapback]513837[/snapback]</div>

I think the word you're looking for is secular.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 08:24 PM) [snapback]513824[/snapback]</div>

I didn't knew the names Enzo, Lucas, Mathis, Thomas, Theo, Hugo, Nathan, Tom Clement and Maxime where muslims...

Why would I die for my religion today ? I'm still able to practise it the way I want... My country is free, and so am I,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 17 2007, 07:35 AM) [snapback]513674[/snapback]</div>

YES!!!!!!

Just ask the Dutch!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tchou @ Sep 17 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]513837[/snapback]</div>

In some areas I am not as well informed on your country. On others, I may have more knowledge because, as an outsider, I have a different perspective. That's the reason I always try to engage someone from another country who speaks English as well as you do, because I value their opinions of my country (even if I disagree with them).

America and France are both countries with a lot of freedom. We are struggling with the impact of Muslim dress in our public facilities as well. Our "public school system" is non-religious, so we have much the same problem. Our laws are regional in nature, so some schools are dealing with the problem while others seem to want to embrace the multi-cultural aspect of providing Muslims extra break time for prayers during the day and segregated rooms to pray in.

I would suggest you look at the violence being done in your country by Muslims ... if you can penetrate the non-disclosure by the press. You might be surprised at how many just "happen to be" Muslim. Many Muslims are, as a people in every society in which they live, a more violent and more repressive people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 17 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]513752[/snapback]</div>

He can't be both?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 17 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]514049[/snapback]</div>

ROFLMAO!!!! :lol:
**********

Perhaps the real reason that we are in Iraq, and will be in Iran, and will be fighting "terrorists" all over the globe for many years to come, is because we are reaping what we've sown.

For a hundred years, we've been part of the "western" world that has invaded the middle east, sold them weapons, bought their oil, embargoed their food, set up and taken down puppet governments, and armed them in their fights against each other. Why? For their oil.

After 9/11 we should have humbly admitted to our part in building up enmity against us, and used it as a catalyst to changing our 'foreign policy', which has been absolutely NOTHING but rapaciously stomping all over the world, acting the bully, and trying to be the King of the hill.

I don't blame the middle east for hating us. We have so much good to give, and all we've ever done is sold 'good' for gold... which is evil.