posted on January 29, 2003 11:08:31 AM new
Here's Clinton's top contributors for 1996. Go through the list:
http://www.opensecrets.org/clinton/clinton96contribs.htm
Here's Gores for the 2000 election:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/bigpicture2000/top_contrib/contrib.ihtml
Here's the top contributors for 2002: and it tells which way they swing, Dem. or Repub.: This one is very interesting.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.asp?cycle=2002
Two sides to every story. Someone stated that before in these forums.
When you go looking for the worst in someone or something. You'll find it. Look for the good first then the bad. Sometimes it evens out. Sometimes it doesn't.
So very true, Colin. I haven't looked at the site yet, but will bet that a lot of contributors gave to both parties...that way no matter who won...they were on their best side.
What the president will not do, however, is draw direct comparisons with past administrations' (including his father's) failed attempts to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. It's a question worth asking: Why did the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration fail to achieve what our current president is so firmly committed to--a new regime in Baghdad?
---------------
Bill Clinton's Iraq policy reflected very different assumptions about America's role in the world. By the time he entered office, the reflexive suspicion of American power that had plagued the Democratic Party after Vietnam had receded along with the threat of communism. But the "come home America" sensibility that it had encouraged still lingered. As Peter Tarnoff, President Clinton's undersecretary of state for policy, explained in 1993, "we simply don't have the leverage, we don't have the influence, we don't have the inclination to use military forces." When Mr. Clinton's focus did wander abroad, the result was a world view that reduced a complex and dangerous world environment to a simple narrative of material progress and moral improvement. Thus he famously gave state sponsors of terrorism a linguistic cleansing, changing their official title from "rogue states" to "states of concern."
This quixotic foreign policy produced its clearest failure in Iraq. According to the administration's scorecard, it was not the integrity of containment or even the value of keeping Saddam disarmed that mattered. Far more important was the imperative of avoiding war. "We are talking about using military force, but we are not talking about war," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said during one of numerous episodes of brinkmanship with Saddam. Advertising its fears as if they were virtues, the administration repeatedly petitioned U.N chief Kofi Annan to extricate it from these encounters. At one point, the Clinton team even devised a strategy whereby the Air Force would fill 2,000-pound bombs with concrete instead of explosives and drop them on Iraq. By the time Mr. Clinton left office, Saddam Hussein was out of the box whose confines had mostly been imaginary to begin with.
posted on January 29, 2003 12:07:47 PM new
I am not a democrat,Some know that,While You are at it,Please note the differences in the size of the contributions.The Dems.were givin chump change compared to what the same Co.s gave to the Repub.s,They are all dirty,The difference is the amounts.It would be nice to carry on a conversation of what is happening now,Not the past,Right now and in your face.When people can do that,They will see the road ahead of them.
I see a war to start with no end,A money pit to beneifit a few.Going into Iraq is just the start of the money pit.We will have troops there(forever),just as in Germany and Japan.We are talking Billions over the cost of the war.Bush brought in Iran and N.Korea into his saber rattleing speech last night.You think "they" didnt hear that?..Whos pushing whos buttons right now?..
Our men and women are in grave danger over there,More so then any past wars,We are so hated for our arrogance and unconcern for the lives of the innocent, we are willing to take everyone out.
I read an artical yesterday,About any of our troops who are killed by chemicals, will be bull dozed into graves.Forget body bags,coming home.
The first Bush war was the same impatience with Iraq,Got to do it now,get it over with.
Lets hurry up and kill and maim,So Saddam doesnt kill and maim.
We are thumbing our noses at people, who can further down the road destroy all life from this earth.The Russians want the oil out of Iraq,China is not going to set back while we try to take on N.Korea...Everyone has Nukes in the bigger populations,They have them for a reason,Us.
posted on January 29, 2003 12:13:54 PM new
We can go back and find something to blame this (Iraq) on, to any president of the last 50 years.
Forget just who's fault it is.
Is it a real danger?
If so what do we do about it?
I think Bush is doing a good job. Whether it's just chest thumping or getting ready for the big hit. Time to take charge.
We made major mistakes with Iran. Who was in office then? No matter what party is in office, mistakes are made. "You can't please all the people all the time." It's time to take care of the business at hand.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on January 29, 2003 12:29:40 PM newAbout any of our troops who are killed by chemicals, will be bull dozed into graves.
Oh, but Saddam doesn't have chemical weapons or other WOMD.
I believe he is a threat. He was a threat 12 years ago, he was a threat during Clinton's administration, and he will be a threat to the region and the world until he is taken out once and for all. And yes, I do think there is a terrorist connection with Iraq and Islamic terrorist groups.
I'm not willing to lose another 3000 people (or more) and then sit around and talk about what we shoulda coulda done much like people's hindsight regarding what Clinton shoulda/coulda with regard to Osama.
posted on January 29, 2003 12:33:21 PM new
junquemama - I understand your deep concerns. I don't deny that many issues remain unknown. But do we act out of fear and do nothing? Or do we take the risk and do what we believe will make positive changes? We all have our own reasons why we feel these actions are, or are not, necessary. I understand yours.
To some of your questions I share my thoughts:
A war to start with no end. Maybe, but maybe not. If we are successful in Iraq the others may just back off and further war may be un-necessary.
We'll have troops there forever like in Japan and Germany. Okay...if that happens there what problem will present?
We are so hated for our arrogance & unconcern for the lives of the innocent - willing to take everyone out. We do have concern for those who will be injured or killed. It's our past history that we work to do our best to not harm civilians[/i].
troops killed by chemicals - They're prepared for this possibility.
Thumbing our noses at people who can, further down the road, destroy all life from this earth. This is the reason we're going in this direction....so these madmen aren't going to be able to do so.
Russians want the oil. So does Germany, so does France. Why do you think they're not supporting us in this action? They'v made deals with Iraq. The fact is the whole world needs the middle-eastern oil to continue running their economies.
What I would like to see is the oil money going to the people of the countries rather than the dictators who have all the money and the people suffer. The people should benefit from their country's oil sales, to those of us who need/want/buyit.
It is a stressful time for all. Again, I understand your position. I just see it differently.
posted on January 29, 2003 12:37:06 PM new I read an artical yesterday,About any of our troops who are killed by chemicals, will be bull dozed into graves.Forget body bags,coming home.
posted on January 29, 2003 01:02:08 PM new
Linda, You talk about few casualties, but if the war is fought in Bagdad, there are four million people there.
Did you know that children are being trained to fight in this war. The Pentagon has no policy on this eventuality.
posted on January 29, 2003 01:06:06 PM new Child fighters would pose ethical nightmare for allied troops in Gulf
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
16 January 2003
http://www.cdi.org/iraq/eye-on-iraq.cfm
American and British forces sent to Iraq may have to fight units of child soldiers trained to mount ambushes, sniper attacks and road blocks, according to US military analysts.
The Pentagon has no official plans on how to deal with child soldiers – leaving its troops vulnerable to deadly attacks from seemingly harmless children as well as the psychological trauma of having to kill children. Experts say the Pentagon's public relations operation is also not prepared to deal with having such images broadcast in the Arab world.
Experts have said the Iraqi regime has been intensely training children aged 10 to 15. The training camps for these units, known as Ashbal Saddam or Saddam Lion Cubs, involve up to 14 hours a day of weapons drill and political indoctrination.
In a recent briefing document, Peter Singer, an analyst with the Brookings Institution think-tank, said there were up to 8,000 such child soldiers in Baghdad alone. He said that as with the Hitler Youth, which fought in the battle for Berlin, the Iraqi child soldiers could "operate with unexpected and terrifying audacity".
He added: "If the record of other child-soldier conflicts holds true, Iraqi child soldiers may become the most problematic in the closing stages of the war or even when the war is seemingly over. [They] will also present a considerable challenge for US public diplomacy, especially in the Arab world where images of coalition forces fighting Iraqi children could have profound consequences."
Experts say troops who encounter child soldiers are usually unwilling to return fire and suffer severe trauma if they have to shoot. In September 2000, British soldiers from the Royal Irish Regiment were taken hostage in Sierra Leone by child soldiers, largely because the commanding officer was not prepared to "fire on children armed with AK-47s".
Rachel Stohl, an analyst with the Centre for Defence Information, said the first American casualty in Afghanistan was shot by a 14-year-old. "Ultimately, they have to be treated as soldiers," she said.
Despite such warnings, the Pentagon says it has provided no special training to its troops on how to deal with child soldiers. Lieutenant-Colonel Martin Compton, a spokesman for US Central Command, said: "I am sure if we encounter them we will deal with them. But there is no special planning I am aware of."
Analysts say the only element of the American armed forces that has studied fighting child soldiers is the Marine Corps. A retired army colonel, Charles Borchini, now attached to the corps's Centre for Emerging Threats and Opportunities, said troops had to be ready to encounter child soldiers "in theatre".
He said training should lay out the rules of engagement, look at ways of countering child soldiers and prepare to deal with the trauma suffered by soldiers who have to kill children.
"Child soldiers are a problem all over the world but it is something we in the West are not accustomed to," he said. "We raise our own children and bring them up and having to fight children is not something we are ready for."
Major Jim Gray, a Royal Marine who served in Sierra Leone on attachment with the UN, told a seminar organised by Col Borchini: "You combine the fact that [the child soldiers] are on drugs, you give them a weapon, and they behave as if they were on a playground, and it is terrifying."
posted on January 29, 2003 01:06:32 PM new
Too bad that I seem to be the only who feels this way.
If this war should stop because of show of arms that would be wonderful.Its not going to,as Iran and N.Korea are on alert.
People in other countrys have a whole different mind set from our own.You think we can jack with the egos of another nationality and not pay for it?.Bush has his own english problems..So how is someone in another country going to under stand we are attacking Iraq to save ourselves.
China has a thumb on N.Korea,a love hate relation ship,They will not sit by and let us take out their red brothers.
Russia had agreements and contracts with Iraq,A thumb of sorts on Iraq.Iran is trying to stay out of the bullseye,and touts its Country thru the worlds richest Iranian,The name is well known ,Maybe hopeing the Americans will notice them,and they have a stake in America.
They all have the same idea,They want to live,and will die fighting for life.Sound familure?
posted on January 29, 2003 01:21:27 PM newYou talk about few casualties
Where did you get that? I never said it.
And if women and children take up arms against our soldiers then they'll do what they've been trained to do. You appear to be under the impression our soldiers aren't being trained for all possibilities. They are.
If, according to the article, the Pentagon doesn't have a policy, how can they be trained to deal with that possibility?
The Pentagon has no official plans on how to deal with child soldiers – leaving its troops vulnerable to deadly attacks from seemingly harmless children as well as the psychological trauma of having to kill children. Experts say the Pentagon's public relations operation is also not prepared to deal with having such images broadcast in the Arab world.
posted on January 29, 2003 01:33:01 PM new
I would think that a soldier who has an enemy firing upon him would fire back. A weapon aimed by a kid will deal death just as well as one aimed by an adult. Just what would you expect that soldier to do? Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 29, 2003 01:54:04 PM newJunquemama's post got buried in my exchange with Linda so I'll repost it.
Junquemama's post
Too bad that I seem to be the only who feels this way.
If this war should stop because of show of arms that would be wonderful.Its not going to,as Iran and N.Korea are on alert.
People in other countrys have a whole different mind set from our own.You think we can jack with the egos of another nationality and not pay for it?.Bush has his own english problems..So how is someone in another country going to under stand we are attacking Iraq to save ourselves.
China has a thumb on N.Korea,a love hate relation ship,They will not sit by and let us take out their red brothers.
Russia had agreements and contracts with Iraq,A thumb of sorts on Iraq.Iran is trying to stay out of the bullseye,and touts its Country thru the worlds richest Iranian,The name is well known ,Maybe hopeing the Americans will notice them,and they have a stake in America.
They all have the same idea,They want to live,and will die fighting for life.Sound familure?
posted on January 29, 2003 01:58:41 PM new
What is more telling is that while both sides have the same problem with contributions, it is the REPUBLICANS who both get the windfall share of it and are also, by sheer coincidence, the ones to Boo and shoot down any sort of reform measures to change said system of corruption.
posted on January 29, 2003 03:24:07 PM new
You talk about my reading abilities....bunni DOESN'T support this war.
Analysts say the only element of the American armed forces that has studied fighting child soldiers is the Marine Corps. This is what I was talking about. Do you really believe that a soldier [male or female] is going to have trouble making a choice between their own death and shooting at anyone who's firing at them. It's called survival. Think it didn't happen during the VietNam War/conflict, Helen? It did.
You always speak of the 'poor children and women' that will die by our actions. If they're carrying guns and willing to kill our soldiers....I say our soldiers will make that decision REAL quick.
So where's your call to have Saddam cooperate Helen? Why does his lack of action not bother you at all? How do you feel about his threats to set fire to the whole region if he begins to see defeat?
posted on January 29, 2003 03:30:02 PM new
It happened in Somalia too. I have to wonder at a culture who uses it's children as weapons or shields. And then cries about the loss of innocent children. Like the palestinians do. Can't have it both ways.
posted on January 29, 2003 03:47:58 PM new
LindaK,We are putting those women and children in that position.
It makes us look real good, to other countrys, by killing women and children.No one will stand with us when that happens.
You cant equate one war with this one.We have all the toys to destroy most countrys,Men itch for war out of boredom,some wars start with bruised egos and or rumors.
I listen to the key words used by Bush & company,"Might"-If"-Could"-Maybe"-May",Too many varibles, cannot be from sane thinking.
posted on January 29, 2003 03:55:48 PM new
Seems to me that child soldiers have about as much choice as adult soldiers. Damned if they do, damned if they dont. With that said, any kid that points a weapon with full intentions of pulling the trigger faces the consequences. How many soldiers in viet nam were blown up by innocent looking children who planted bombs on them? I think men and women that are ordered to go to Iraq and may feel incompetent to fire due to it being a child on the other end of their pointing weapon need to be prepared for just such a possibility. And how do we, the civilian public, know that they are not? We dont.
posted on January 29, 2003 03:58:30 PM newWe are putting those women and children in that position. NOoooooooooo we aren't. Their men could be the only ones that fight. They could value their women and children more than they do. That decision cannot be laid at our doorstep.
Did you see the picture of their women all in white, in military formation, carrying their rifles? Smiling? Feeling so proud? Their choice.
