Gen. McPeak banned from the White House

JPhillips · 03-27-2003, 10:01 AM

Or at least he will be soon based on these comments. BTW- McPeak was the former head of the Air Force and is now retired in Oregon.

"When we started bombing Kosovo, everybody in the world saw that -- how painful that decision was. They knew we weren't there to make Kosovo the 51st state; they knew we didn't go into Afghanistan to put George Bush's face on the money there. When we act with legitimacy, it gives our military actions a source of strength. I mean for me this is an aspect of the political maladroitness. I mean you just have to say that you wonder if there's anybody in the White House that's an educated adult.

* * * * *

In my judgment, you can fight a war on terrorism and do it legitimately (and) do it without sacrificing civil liberties in the United States, but it requires a certain intelligence and sophistication be brought to the table.

So maybe we ought to start grading presidential candidates for an IQ. Although it's hard to see why anybody that's very smart would want to run."

CamEdwards · 03-28-2003, 10:44 AM

Since we didn't get UN approval for Kosovo or Afghanistan, I'm not sure how either of those actions were "more legitimate".

flame on!

clintl · 03-28-2003, 10:57 AM

We did not need UN approval to legally attack Afghanistan because it was harboring forces that attacked us. The UN charter allows for a country that has been attacked to defend itself without UN approval.

In Kosovo, although there was no formal UN approval, the U.S. did work very hard and successfully to gain international support(including formal NATO approval), and rather than issue hostile ultimatums and demands to those countries opposed to the action, it reached out to them to try to mitigate their concerns. As a result, some of the countries opposed (like Russia) willingly participated in helping to stabilize the area after the Serb military was driven out of Kosovo.

The difference is not so much with the legalities, but with the collaborative approach of the Clinton administration vs. the coercive, unilateralist approach of the Bush administration. The Clinton approach builds trust. The Bush approach destroys it.

Wolfpack · 03-28-2003, 12:19 PM

Errrummm...the UK, Australia, and about four dozen other countries "trust" us. Or do they not count because they aren't France or Germany?

CamEdwards · 03-28-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wolfpack
Errrummm...the UK, Australia, and about four dozen other countries "trust" us. Or do they not count because they aren't France or Germany?

Bingo.

Also, the british press is reporting that Al-Queda forces are fighting alongside the Fedayeen Saddam. Do they count when they're in Iraq, or do they have to be in Afghanistan for it to be justified?

NoMyths · 03-28-2003, 12:29 PM

"Trust" and "support during a war" are two different things.

Bee · 03-28-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wolfpack
Errrummm...the UK, Australia, and about four dozen other countries "trust" us. Or do they not count because they aren't France or Germany?

Out of curiousity, why do you think those countries (I assume you are referring to the "Coalition of the Willing") trust us?

Dangit NM, you beat me to my question.

Bee · 03-28-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoMyths
"Trust" and "support during a war" are two different things.

You could even go as far as saying the governments of those coutries "supporting the war" and the people of those countries "supporting the war" are two different things as well.

Radii · 03-28-2003, 12:49 PM

I <3 clintl

CamEdwards · 03-28-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by clintl
The Clinton approach builds trust. The Bush approach destroys it.

The Clinton approach also got the embassies in Africa bombed, the USS Cole struck by an explosives laden speedboat, and the World Trade Center bombed.

John Galt · 03-28-2003, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamEdwards
The Clinton approach also got the embassies in Africa bombed, the USS Cole struck by an explosives laden speedboat, and the World Trade Center bombed.

Now that's just crazy talk - you can't blame Clinton for the WTC (and you definitely can't blame a consensus building model for it). Besides, Clinton was a dumbass who started this pre-emptive model for dealing with terrorists when he bombed the aspirin factory in Sudan to get at Bin Laden.

CamEdwards · 03-28-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt
Now that's just crazy talk - you can't blame Clinton for the WTC (and you definitely can't blame a consensus building model for it). Besides, Clinton was a dumbass who started this pre-emptive model for dealing with terrorists when he bombed the aspirin factory in Sudan to get at Bin Laden.

No sir, the bombing in Afghanistan and the Sudan was in response to the bombings in Africa. There was nothing pre-emptive about it.

As for the 1993 bombing of the WTC (which is what I'm referring to, not 9/11), Clinton's policy on terrorism was always "ignore them and they'll go away". That changed to "pretend to get tough with them and they'll go away" after we bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan.

Bee · 03-28-2003, 01:25 PM

Whether it's Clinton, Bush or even Reagan...I don't blame them for terrorists attacking us. To me that's about the same logic as blaming a rape victim for "dressing provocatively". We as a country do things that may upset people in other countries, but that is not a justification for terrorism. JMO.

John Galt · 03-28-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CamEdwards
No sir, the bombing in Afghanistan and the Sudan was in response to the bombings in Africa. There was nothing pre-emptive about it.

As for the 1993 bombing of the WTC (which is what I'm referring to, not 9/11), Clinton's policy on terrorism was always "ignore them and they'll go away". That changed to "pretend to get tough with them and they'll go away" after we bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan.

This could go on endlessly - the bombings in Africa could be blamed on US actions in Beirut or our support of Israel's attacks. My point is that Sudan was the first country we bombed that we felt was harboring hostile forces (maybe I'm wrong - I just can't think of one before that). It was pre-emptive in the sense that Sudan hadn't directly attacked the US or its allies and wasn't a "humanitarian intervention."

And I think Clinton's terrorism policy sucked, but he did bomb Sudan and pursue other avenues. I just think it is unfair to blame the administration for the WTC.

Franklinnoble · 03-28-2003, 01:32 PM

Douchebag Clintonian politics and foreign policy weakened what should be the most powerful nation on the planet.

It's only natural for some nations to fear and hate the USA - we have it a hell of a lot better than they do, and there's nothing they can do but bitch and moan about it. To hell with them. If another nation, regime, or terrorist organization poses a threat to the US, we should have no problem taking swift and lethal preemptive action against it. Better to hit them first than to wait for another 9/11.

CamEdwards · 03-28-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bee
Whether it's Clinton, Bush or even Reagan...I don't blame them for terrorists attacking us. To me that's about the same logic as blaming a rape victim for "dressing provocatively". We as a country do things that may upset people in other countries, but that is not a justification for terrorism. JMO.

I'm not blaming Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. for the terrorists attacking. Well, I guess I am. I think Clinton's policy of dealing with terrorists allowed them to feel confident in attacking us again and again. Clinton wasn't responsible for terrorists attacking us, our founding fathers are responsible. After all, it was them who set up a country that others emulate and envy.

JPhillips · 03-28-2003, 01:52 PM

Cam: By your logic the Beirut bombings were Reagan's fault and the 9/11 attacks were Bush's fault right?

CamEdwards · 03-28-2003, 02:13 PM

the so-called logic behind the Beirut bombings and the 9/11 attacks are completely different. The response to the Beirut bombings and the 9/11 attacks are also completely different than how Clinton dealt with the attacks on the US embassies, the WTC, and the USS Cole.

First of all, Beirut was the beginning of the kind of large scale terrorist attacks against American interests. It's kind of hard to fault Reagan when we had never seen this type of attack on our country before. When the barracks were attacked just a few months after our embassy was attacked, should we have retaliated with a stronger military presence? Maybe. But we weren't the only superpower around, nor did we have the established military presence in the Middle East at that time. It would have been a lot harder to pull off in 1983 than in 2003.

9/11 happened for many reasons, one of which was the laissez-faire attitude prevalent in our government. You might be able to pin some of the blame on the Bush administration for not removing that attitude, but he'd had less than a year to undo the damage of the previous administration.

Again, I'm not blaming Clinton for terrorists attacking us. I'm blaming Clinton for not getting tough with the terrorists when they did.

JPhillips · 03-28-2003, 04:02 PM

Cam: Sorry if I misunderstood, but you did say,

The Clinton approach also got the embassies in Africa bombed, the USS Cole struck by an explosives laden speedboat, and the World Trade Center bombed.

That sounds a lot like blaming Clinton for the attacks.

CamEdwards · 03-28-2003, 04:05 PM

I know, sorry if I was unclear. I'm debating in three different threads and I missed my nap today. I'm probably not as sharp as I should be. You gotta be on your toes to debate on this board (which is what makes it one of the best)

clintl · 03-28-2003, 04:47 PM

There are two basic reasons there are Middle Eastern terrorists groups wanting to attack us:

1) US support for Israel.
2) The US has kept large numbers of troops in the Middle East since the Gulf War, many on Saudi soil, and many in the region resent it.

These policies have been supported and pursued by every recent president, Republican or Democrat. They have nothing to do with the point I was making on the methods and skill of Clinton to build international support for Kosovo, nor the incompetence of the Bush administration's methods and skill to do the same thing with regard to Iraq.

CamEdwards · 03-28-2003, 06:26 PM

Well, there's also the fact that France, Germany, and Russia didn't have billions of dollars in oil leases in Kosovo, nor were they responsible for 84% of the military hardware owned by Slobodan Milosovic, some of which was provided in violation of UN resolutions.

But yes, you're right. Clearly Clinton was a better diplomat. It's just that (IMO) Bush is a better president.

03-28-2003, 10:44 AM	#2
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	Since we didn't get UN approval for Kosovo or Afghanistan, I'm not sure how either of those actions were "more legitimate". flame on! __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

03-28-2003, 01:52 PM	#17
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Cam: By your logic the Beirut bombings were Reagan's fault and the 9/11 attacks were Bush's fault right? __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

03-28-2003, 02:13 PM	#18
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	the so-called logic behind the Beirut bombings and the 9/11 attacks are completely different. The response to the Beirut bombings and the 9/11 attacks are also completely different than how Clinton dealt with the attacks on the US embassies, the WTC, and the USS Cole. First of all, Beirut was the beginning of the kind of large scale terrorist attacks against American interests. It's kind of hard to fault Reagan when we had never seen this type of attack on our country before. When the barracks were attacked just a few months after our embassy was attacked, should we have retaliated with a stronger military presence? Maybe. But we weren't the only superpower around, nor did we have the established military presence in the Middle East at that time. It would have been a lot harder to pull off in 1983 than in 2003. 9/11 happened for many reasons, one of which was the laissez-faire attitude prevalent in our government. You might be able to pin some of the blame on the Bush administration for not removing that attitude, but he'd had less than a year to undo the damage of the previous administration. Again, I'm not blaming Clinton for terrorists attacking us. I'm blaming Clinton for not getting tough with the terrorists when they did. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

03-28-2003, 04:02 PM	#19
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Cam: Sorry if I misunderstood, but you did say, The Clinton approach also got the embassies in Africa bombed, the USS Cole struck by an explosives laden speedboat, and the World Trade Center bombed. That sounds a lot like blaming Clinton for the attacks. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

03-28-2003, 04:05 PM	#20
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	I know, sorry if I was unclear. I'm debating in three different threads and I missed my nap today. I'm probably not as sharp as I should be. You gotta be on your toes to debate on this board (which is what makes it one of the best) __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

03-28-2003, 10:57 AM	#3
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	We did not need UN approval to legally attack Afghanistan because it was harboring forces that attacked us. The UN charter allows for a country that has been attacked to defend itself without UN approval. In Kosovo, although there was no formal UN approval, the U.S. did work very hard and successfully to gain international support(including formal NATO approval), and rather than issue hostile ultimatums and demands to those countries opposed to the action, it reached out to them to try to mitigate their concerns. As a result, some of the countries opposed (like Russia) willingly participated in helping to stabilize the area after the Serb military was driven out of Kosovo. The difference is not so much with the legalities, but with the collaborative approach of the Clinton administration vs. the coercive, unilateralist approach of the Bush administration. The Clinton approach builds trust. The Bush approach destroys it.

03-28-2003, 12:19 PM	#4
Wolfpack Pro Rookie Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC	Errrummm...the UK, Australia, and about four dozen other countries "trust" us. Or do they not count because they aren't France or Germany?

03-28-2003, 12:29 PM	#6
NoMyths Poet in Residence Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Charleston, SC	"Trust" and "support during a war" are two different things.

03-28-2003, 12:49 PM	#9
Radii Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	I <3 clintl

03-28-2003, 01:25 PM	#13
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	Whether it's Clinton, Bush or even Reagan...I don't blame them for terrorists attacking us. To me that's about the same logic as blaming a rape victim for "dressing provocatively". We as a country do things that may upset people in other countries, but that is not a justification for terrorism. JMO.

03-28-2003, 01:32 PM	#15
Franklinnoble Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Placerville, CA	Douchebag Clintonian politics and foreign policy weakened what should be the most powerful nation on the planet. It's only natural for some nations to fear and hate the USA - we have it a hell of a lot better than they do, and there's nothing they can do but bitch and moan about it. To hell with them. If another nation, regime, or terrorist organization poses a threat to the US, we should have no problem taking swift and lethal preemptive action against it. Better to hit them first than to wait for another 9/11.

03-28-2003, 04:47 PM	#21
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	There are two basic reasons there are Middle Eastern terrorists groups wanting to attack us: 1) US support for Israel. 2) The US has kept large numbers of troops in the Middle East since the Gulf War, many on Saudi soil, and many in the region resent it. These policies have been supported and pursued by every recent president, Republican or Democrat. They have nothing to do with the point I was making on the methods and skill of Clinton to build international support for Kosovo, nor the incompetence of the Bush administration's methods and skill to do the same thing with regard to Iraq.

03-28-2003, 06:26 PM	#22
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	Well, there's also the fact that France, Germany, and Russia didn't have billions of dollars in oil leases in Kosovo, nor were they responsible for 84% of the military hardware owned by Slobodan Milosovic, some of which was provided in violation of UN resolutions. But yes, you're right. Clearly Clinton was a better diplomat. It's just that (IMO) Bush is a better president. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)