View Single Post
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2008, 08:14 PM
hambirg's Avatar
hambirg hambirg is offline
Ultimate Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by wowitsdark View Post
Ya know, I know we like to say that hindsight is 20/20, but I really don't know that it is. I, too, have been critical of Clinton for not getting Obama when he had the chance, but for all we know that would've outraged a number of Islamic terrorists and we'd have been in worse shape than *just* what happened on 9/11. The terrorists that attacked us that day had been here for ages planning and plotting that particular attack. There was great concern that news of OBL's death would start a huge domino train that he'd put in place... and if that was true, it was probably true during the Clinton administration.

There really *is* no valid method to know the outcome of the road not taken, nor is there a fabulous way to divine the future when you go with the option that appears to be the best.

I think wisdom would have us proceed with integrity and honor, or follow and lead those for whom honor is a priority. The ones who pitched the loudest fit at our invading Iraq were Russia and France... and it was determined that they had been buying food stores from Saddam... food that was given to him in exchange for oil... food, rather than cash, because he was under sanctions and the UN had declared him not to be able to receive cash in exchange for any commodity but that he *was* able to trade for *food* as a means to keep him from having cash in his hands and to ensure that the people of Iraq were fed.

Kind of like the way we give food stamps instead of cash.

But Russia and France cut a back door deal with him - illegally - and offered to buy that food from Iraq, the food that was supposed to feed the Iraqi people - on the cheap. It was a sweet deal. They got cheap food, he got his pockets lined with cash, and he built more and more palaces with the money.

So we went to the UN and Russia and France got all out of kilter at the idea of the UN enforcing the cease fire agreement and said *we* were the bad guys for being so hard on poor Saddam Hussein. A number of countries were on our side - and those were the nations who hadn't been in bed with Saddam and buying UN-driven food on the cheap.
You are right on the money with this post. It would have been very dangerous to go after Bin Laden. He was basically a CIA operative for years. And we pretty much escorted him out of Afghanastan into Pakistan. They don't want to kill Bin Laden and make him a martyr for his cause. The people under him are much scarier than even he is.

Again.. .right on the money with Russia and France. . .always follow the money trail. . .there are the real answers.
__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm