Osama, Clinton, Bush, and Chomsky

[Almighty Colin]

So I was reading some Chomsky articles last night and came across this line "Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing tens of thousands of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it)." surely an exaggeration

Now, I only vaguely remembered this so had to look it up. It happened at the same time as those bombings of Afghan terror camps.

So anyway, I do a little more research and come across this article (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/23/sudan.apology/) detailing Clinton's decision to bomb a suspected chemical weapons plant in the Sudan and the subsequent claims that the US had "no evidence to support ... allegations that the plant was being used to produce chemical weapons and poisonous gases for terrorist purposes."

In response to asking for proof that the plant was being used to produce chemical weapons the adminstration said "the evidence, obviously, is highly classified. We're not going to release it, but I can say that I have no question and the intelligence community has no questions."

Sudanese officials responded with "Bin Laden never came near the factory, and there is no way that this factory could have produced chemical weapons."

Even more interesting is this: "The United States persuaded Sudan to expel bin Laden in 1995. The minister called that move a mistake. We gave U.S. officials a piece of advice that they never followed. We told them: 'Don't send him out of Sudan because you will lose control over him.' Now, the United States has ended up with war with an invisible enemy," Salah el-Din said"

I always find it interesting how similar doctrine is from one administration to the next and how differently everyone views it from the partisan "We're right, you're wrong" point of view.



Last edited by Colin at Jun 18 2004, 05:56 AM

[Buff]

You are reading Chomsky... why? He's a hypocrite of the first order. Send him an email and ask him why he has 2 boats, a mansion, a sports car, an SUV, and 2 other cars if he hates our American, evil quasi-capitalism.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 18 2004, 06:12 AM
You are reading Chomsky... why? He's a hypocrite of the first order. Send him an email and ask him why he has 2 boats, a mansion, a sports car, an SUV, and 2 other cars if he hates our American, evil quasi-capitalism.
I read everything, even things I'm likely to disagree with. Apparently you do too ("he hates our American, evil quasi-capitalism.")

[Mike AI]

Cannot compaire Clinton's strike with Bushs. If Clinton had done his job we would probably not have had a 9-11, and we would be closer to winning the war on terrorism.

It is hard to blame him, most of the world would rather stick their heads into the sand. It took 9-11 to wake some people up, and helped Bush have the moral authority to launch a war on islamic fundamentalism.

The war has been going on since teh early 80s, we have finally decided to fight back, it will last a lot longer.

The appeasers in Europe who side against the US are hoping by doing this the Islamicists will pass them over. Short term that might happen, but these guys want all of us destroyed. The appeasers are just going to make life more difficult in the long run.

[Almighty Colin]

I am not sure what Clinton should have done. Even today there is not a clear policy being used uniformly everywhere. We invade Iraq and not North Korea or Iran. Saudi Arabia remains our ally though they are the center of the terror universe.

I certainly don't find Clinton to blame for anything. Maybe we should have went after Osama more in 1998 but then we are after him right now and still don't have him and it's not clear if we ever will. After 9/11 we had to go after him and I would say the American public would not have settled for anything else. In Clinton's case, I think the American public was somewhat indifferent.

Nevertheless, Clinton bombed targets in Afghanistan and Sudan based on intelligence which - in the case of Sudan - seemed to have been wrong. These were acts of war.



Last edited by Colin at Jun 18 2004, 11:56 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Colin@Jun 18 2004, 11:47 AM
I am not sure what Clinton should have done. Even today there is not a clear policy being used uniformly everywhere. We invade Iraq and not North Korea or Iran. Saudi Arabia remains our ally though they are the center the terror universe..
Oh, and Mike, I know your solution is "invade them all" but I don't think that is realistic. I think we should go back to the Clinton way. If we have evidence a facility is being used to produce WMDs, let's just bomb it. ;-)

[RawAlex]

The biggest difference between the Clinton way to doing things and the Bush way of doing things is "boots on the ground"... it is way easier, way simpler, and somewhat less effective to do things the Clinton way, but you don't end up with a bunch of good kids in flag draped coffins.

Clinton was about trying to stop bad things... Bush is about overthrowing governments and making them be deomcratic, like it or not.

Alex

[wig]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 18 2004, 11:59 AM
The biggest difference between the Clinton way to doing things and the Bush way of doing things is "boots on the ground"... it is way easier, way simpler, and somewhat less effective to do things the Clinton way, but you don't end up with a bunch of good kids in flag draped coffins.

Clinton was about trying to stop bad things... Bush is about overthrowing governments and making them be deomcratic, like it or not.

Alex
I agree with this with the notation that it was Clinton's own political skin that was the catalyst and not the "good kids".

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 18 2004, 11:59 AM
The biggest difference between the Clinton way to doing things and the Bush way of doing things is "boots on the ground"... it is way easier, way simpler, and somewhat less effective to do things the Clinton way, but you don't end up with a bunch of good kids in flag draped coffins.

Clinton was about trying to stop bad things... Bush is about overthrowing governments and making them be deomcratic, like it or not.

Alex
In Canada, bombing a country is not considered an act of war?

So let me get this straight. Clinton acted on "intelligence" and bombs a "WMD factory" in Sudan in retaliation for a bombing by al Qaeda. This happens in 1998 even though Osama was expelled from Sudan in 1995. After the fact, tons of evidence came out that contradicted the claim that there was a WMD plant there.

So for you, acting on intelligence is ok as long as it is just bombing and there aren't any "boots on the ground". If the US intelligence suspects there is a WMD plant in Canada, you think it is ok for the US to bomb it? This is not an act of war?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 18 2004, 11:59 AM
Bush is about overthrowing governments and making them be deomcratic, like it or not.

Alex
Dictatorships are not consensual governments. They are a few men holding the rest of the country hostage. Like it or not.