6 ms·

Clinton would have done the same. 9/11 was much different than the attacks in the 90s.

by sigzero 14y ago

bryanlarsen 14y ago
Clinton would have attacked Afghanistan, sure. But would he have stayed in Afghanistan and/or attacked Iraq? Those are the two items that have cost dearly.
- ams6110 14y ago
  There were two big reasons reasons the US went into Iraq. One was Saddam Hussein and WMD. Everyone believed that he had them, and it's a matter of fact that he had used them in the past. Though they were never found, it's not illogical to believe that he was simply able to move them elsewhere or destroy them before they were discovered. And taking out his regime would remove a large destabilizing factor in that part of the world (in theory anyway). The other reason was to create a local distraction. To keep "the terrorists" occupied, their violence and attacks confined to that part of the world, and not in the US. In that sense, they "fell for it" too. If the public need for "revenge" had been satisfied by attacking Afghanistan, I think Clinton would have stopped there. He was not a risk-taker, and he was totally driven by polls.
  - mangala 14y ago
    This was the narrative toed by the Bush administration and Fox News, but many Americans and the international community by and large did not agree.
    - bryanlarsen 14y ago
      I think that's largely a case of selective memory. People often have a rosy memory of what they believed. Bush said he had clear evidence of WMD's in Iraq, that he showed this to Blair and Blair confirmed. I think it would be fair to say that most people would agree that Hussein wanted WMD's. So I think it's fair to think that most Americans and most in the international community believed that Iraq had WMD's. The argument was mostly over whether an invasion was an appropriate response. It was only "crazies" who believed both that Bush lied and that he was able to either snooker Blair or convince him to join in the lie. Sometimes the crazies are right, though.
      - jarek 14y ago
        > So I think it's fair to think that [...] most in the international community believed that Iraq had WMD's. Hm... "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien, discussing what type of proof Canadian government wanted before assisting in a war with Iraq (which it ultimately did not)
      - raintrees 14y ago
        I remember recently seeing polls that showed a large group of Americans still think (were brainwashed into thinking) that Iraq was largely responsible for 9-11. Of course a (different?) large majority also believe the Earth is only around 10K years old. So maybe selective/programmed memory is a more accurate term?
      - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
        Um... I was on anti Iraq war demos when I was 18, because it was obvious to me Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. And I was _not_ alone in this assumption: "In London, at least 750,000 people demonstrated in what police called the city's largest demonstration ever." Source: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Protest-Iraq-War16feb03.htm http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Protest-Iraq-War16feb03...
        bryanlarsen 14y ago
        But I bet that most of those 750,000 believed that Iraq had WMD's of some sort, perhaps very limited in capability. But they also believed that a war was an inappropriate response to the existence of those WMD's.
        AkThhhpppt 14y ago
        No, it was more or less assumed to be bollocks. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix#Iraq_disarmament_.27crisis.27_.282002-2003.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix#Iraq_disarmament_.27... for an idea of what we were hearing).
  - reirob 14y ago
    "...Everyone believed that he had them, and it's a matter of fact that he had used them in the past." - I am European and I clearly remember the feeling that the US openly manipulated the rest of the world. But it did not work, at least in Western EU, excluding UK. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq. There are lot of sources for some of the quotes that I will take here: * "Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194)." - So out of all the EU countries only UK and Poland went to the war. * "The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some long-standing U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada." * "On 15 February 2003, a month before the invasion, there were worldwide protests against the Iraq war, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally."
  - jeisc 14y ago
    Saddam was planning to sell his oil only in euros and bush and company could not stand for that.

Clinton would have done the same. 9/11 was much different than the attacks in the 90s.

by sigzero 14y ago

Clinton would have done the same. 9/11 was much different than the attacks in the 90s.

Clinton would have attacked Afghanistan, sure. But would he have stayed in Afghanistan and/or attacked Iraq? Those are the two items that have cost dearly.

ams6110 14y ago
There were two big reasons reasons the US went into Iraq. One was Saddam Hussein and WMD. Everyone believed that he had them, and it's a matter of fact that he had used them in the past. Though they were never found, it's not illogical to believe that he was simply able to move them elsewhere or destroy them before they were discovered. And taking out his regime would remove a large destabilizing factor in that part of the world (in theory anyway). The other reason was to create a local distraction. To keep "the terrorists" occupied, their violence and attacks confined to that part of the world, and not in the US. In that sense, they "fell for it" too. If the public need for "revenge" had been satisfied by attacking Afghanistan, I think Clinton would have stopped there. He was not a risk-taker, and he was totally driven by polls.
- mangala 14y ago
  This was the narrative toed by the Bush administration and Fox News, but many Americans and the international community by and large did not agree.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    I think that's largely a case of selective memory. People often have a rosy memory of what they believed. Bush said he had clear evidence of WMD's in Iraq, that he showed this to Blair and Blair confirmed. I think it would be fair to say that most people would agree that Hussein wanted WMD's. So I think it's fair to think that most Americans and most in the international community believed that Iraq had WMD's. The argument was mostly over whether an invasion was an appropriate response. It was only "crazies" who believed both that Bush lied and that he was able to either snooker Blair or convince him to join in the lie. Sometimes the crazies are right, though.
    - jarek 14y ago
      > So I think it's fair to think that [...] most in the international community believed that Iraq had WMD's. Hm... "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien, discussing what type of proof Canadian government wanted before assisting in a war with Iraq (which it ultimately did not)
    - raintrees 14y ago
      I remember recently seeing polls that showed a large group of Americans still think (were brainwashed into thinking) that Iraq was largely responsible for 9-11. Of course a (different?) large majority also believe the Earth is only around 10K years old. So maybe selective/programmed memory is a more accurate term?
    - AkThhhpppt 14y ago
      Um... I was on anti Iraq war demos when I was 18, because it was obvious to me Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. And I was _not_ alone in this assumption: "In London, at least 750,000 people demonstrated in what police called the city's largest demonstration ever." Source: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Protest-Iraq-War16feb03.htm http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Protest-Iraq-War16feb03...
      - bryanlarsen 14y ago
        But I bet that most of those 750,000 believed that Iraq had WMD's of some sort, perhaps very limited in capability. But they also believed that a war was an inappropriate response to the existence of those WMD's.
        AkThhhpppt 14y ago
        No, it was more or less assumed to be bollocks. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix#Iraq_disarmament_.27crisis.27_.282002-2003.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix#Iraq_disarmament_.27... for an idea of what we were hearing).
- reirob 14y ago
  "...Everyone believed that he had them, and it's a matter of fact that he had used them in the past." - I am European and I clearly remember the feeling that the US openly manipulated the rest of the world. But it did not work, at least in Western EU, excluding UK. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq. There are lot of sources for some of the quotes that I will take here: * "Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194)." - So out of all the EU countries only UK and Poland went to the war. * "The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some long-standing U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada." * "On 15 February 2003, a month before the invasion, there were worldwide protests against the Iraq war, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally."
- jeisc 14y ago
  Saddam was planning to sell his oil only in euros and bush and company could not stand for that.