Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Quote Reply
Topic: What would have Clinton done about Iraq? Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 12:38 |
Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, American or non-American, Clinton-lover or Clinton-basher, you have to agree that Clinton is a MUCH smarter man than George W. Bush. (In fact I cannot think of anyone who is not ... but that's another story.) What would have Clinton done with Iraq or would he have done anything at all?
|
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 12:39 |
Sorry, I think I wasn't clear enough. The question should be: What would have Clinton done with Iraq if he were still the president of the United States?
|
|
cg rommel
Shogun
Joined: 12-Dec-2005
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 244
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 17:00 |
how could he be president after more than 12 years.... i think your only allowed to be 8...
anyway... i dont know what he would do.... probably somthin better,
like employing the cia or someone to stage a coup in iraq...
|
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 17:18 |
I know. That's why the question is hypothetical.
|
|
big toothbrush
Immortal Guard
Joined: 23-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 17:55 |
He would do the same thing as Bush did, to grab benefit for the U.S., despite in different way.
|
|
|
DukeC
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 18:03 |
Clinton would have been wise enough to realize that it's much easier to start a war than it is to end one.
As for Bush's intelligence I think you're misunderestimating him.
|
|
Jay.
Chieftain
Joined: 24-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1207
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 19:56 |
I don't like Clinton. He bombed Belgrade.
Anyways, I don't think he would've done a better job than Bush... Clinton was too irresponsible.
|
|
cg rommel
Shogun
Joined: 12-Dec-2005
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 244
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 09:17 |
Well, yea, america is a little overprotective towards albanians.....
but still it mostly slobos fault the it came to the bombong....
|
|
Jay.
Chieftain
Joined: 24-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1207
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 11:44 |
Slobodan gives a bad name for Serbs
|
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 15:03 |
Personally I like Clinton. I also think he is very smart - perhaps one of the smartest U.S. presidents in recent history. However, I agree with some of the forumers here that, if he were still the president, he might not have done things too differently from Bush. Even though the U.S. president is powerful, he still has to rely on people around him in making decisions. I don't think the CIA would have done a better job under Clinton to provide him with more accurate intelligence information on Iraq. EVEN Colin Powell (he SHOULD BE the president instead) was fooled, so I don't think Clinton would have been able to do better. However, given his diplomatic skills, he would definitely have been able to rally more support from other countries instead of alienating almost the entire world. (I still believe that the current anti-American sentiment so prevalent in the world now has a lot to do with the style of Bush and his administration or just Bush himself rather than with the American people per se.) As commander-in-chief, Clinton might have been able to avoid some of the errors that Bush made, e.g. not sending enough troops to Iraq in the initial phase and making those stupid and arrogant remarks like "mission accomplished" or "bring 'em on" (WTF!!!!).
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2005 at 03:17 |
Personally I think he would try and start something within the country
itself. Probably sponsor some sort of uprising among the ethnic and
religious groups there, while pretending that Saddam's regime is
finally collapsing all on its own. Then when things start getting messy
he would send in his troops as "peacekeepers". Clinton is alot more
subtle than bush so I think this is how he would do it. Bush's style is
more the direct confrontation head bashing. That is if we consider Clinton invading Iraq.
If it were just, "what would he have done?", then I would say he would
probably continue the blockade as per usual and not invade. Emotionally
he is more in control than Bush, and doesn't have a paternal legacy to
push him into that course of action.
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 05:28 |
I really think anyone who isnt a neo con idiot would NOT have invaded Iraq. Iraq under Saddam benefited US intrests far more than Iraq under democracy. But these people in power now arent smart, they are th emodern version of a Wilsonian idealist. They think by claiming divine contact they can go "free" people abroad. Well, GW's moronic foreign policy will turn out just as much a failure as Wilson's. Thats what happens when idealists are in power...the road to hell is paved with good intentions is it not?
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|