Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (134970)	5/30/2004 7:28:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Clinton administration, according to Clarke, recognized the same truth that you pointed out but did not feel the need to invade and occupy Iraq in order to dissuade Iraq from supporting terrorists. According to Clarke they missiled the offices of the Iraqi intelligence agency and then told Iraq in no uncertain terms words to the effect that "we know where you live and there's a lot more coming if you don't learn." Clarke said a second lesson was never necessary Clarke is not exactly a disinterested party here. He is doing CYA. It was during the Clinton watch that Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors and declared himself the great Arab Defier of the Great Satan, and was sidling ever closer to the Islamists. That was when Clinton did Desert Fox. The choice was arrived at not because the Clinton administration thought this use of force was adequate. They didn't. They thought it was all that was politically possible. What was politically possible generally curtailed Clintons fp efforts; that's why most his his fp was a game of kick-the-can. I agree with the use of that kind of limited force Sure, so do I, so does everybody! But one little question - what if it doesn't work? It did not work with Saddam.