Cruise missile strikes on Iraq.

Ok I know this is old is from a while back now, I was looking at videos about Afghanistan and ended up coming across this video about a Clinton bombing of Iraq in 1993. I think this should be brought up because i can't bre sure if the cruise missile strikes on assassination of H.W. Bush is worthy a response? But did Clinton say it's an attack on the United States of America and it's people?



Also this is a couple of videos clips of a cruise missile strikes that happened in 1993.

www.youtube.com... i can't get this in a full picture though like the above one like this one here

www.youtube.com...

BTW i also found this video of an Iraqi woman artist killed in a US missile attack that day.

www.youtube.com...

Was it worthy of a response for this attack just because of attempted assassination by Iraqi agents on HW Bush?

reply to post by Paulioetc15

I believe this is the classic example of enlightened self interest. Clinton couldn't have failed to realize that avenging the Bush assassination plot helped build a deterrence that some foreign interest might try and do something nasty to him some day. I don't think it REALLY justified missile attacks into a foreign nation though. Maybe a SEAL team coming and going in the night? Not missiles though.

Watching this video also reminds me of what being Presidential looked like. It wasn't uncommon back then, of course and I disliked Clinton intensely, but given the last two, over ten years? I almost miss him in the White House.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


i agree, I do not think it's worthy to send in missile attack just for assanation of George Bush Sr. Either Clinton should hnot send in missile attacks. Yet the last link i had here that the Iraqi aritst was killed in the attack. I mean he also said that the attack on the President is the attack of the United States. I mean i don't know why he did that.

But ya Clinton was great person.

I was in the Saudi Arabia the night of those attacks. I remember it well. What I think most people forget is we were still bombing Iraq almost daily even after Desert Storm "ended". In that context, the missile strike was not inconsistent with everything else going on at the time. Just more of the same.

reply to post by ABNARTY


I understand though because the Gulf War never ended, What i'm talking about is that was it worthy a cruise missile attack as reponse to assaniated H.W. Bush Sr?

Originally posted by ABNARTY
I was in the Saudi Arabia the night of those attacks. I remember it well. What I think most people forget is we were still bombing Iraq almost daily even after Desert Storm "ended". In that context, the missile strike was not inconsistent with everything else going on at the time. Just more of the same.

Its the elites protecting one of there own what did anyone expect?

reply to post by Paulioetc15


Ahhh slick Willie.
One of the worst Presidents [Except to those who were kids when he was in office] He didn't have sex with Monica but he did fire missiles into Iraq and later into Afghanistan to destroy supposed "Terrorist Training camps" WAY before 9/11. Not to mention turning a blind eye to red China when they were caught red handed stealing sensitive missile technology.


But he looks so "Presidential"

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

Ahhh slick Willie.
One of the worst Presidents [Except to those who were kids when he was in office] He didn't have sex with Monica but he did fire missiles into Iraq and later into Afghanistan to destroy supposed "Terrorist Training camps" WAY before 9/11. Not to mention turning a blind eye to red China when they were caught red handed stealing sensitive missile technology.


But he looks so "Presidential"

LOL ya i know that. But Clinton did ignored terrroist theats after the bombing of a US Embassy in 1998, 1993 WTC center bombing, 1996 Khobars bombing, and the USS Cole bombing. But this thread is strictly abaout whether it's a worthy reponse to launch missile attacks on Baghdad in 1993 for an assanation plot against H.W. Bush Sr.

What a master of pomp and ceremony. Former President Bill Clinton was a master politicians and could sell ice to Eskimos. That was sarcasm, but the guy does have a gift for gab. Now, if there was a assassination plot against former President H. W. Bush, and that it was hatched in Iraq? Then a military strike against Iraq's leadership is warranted. Now, was it an attack on the American people as Clinton said? That is a matter of opinion? I would have liked to have seen more proof verifying his accusations of the plot, and its origin coming out of Iraq. Saddam was capable of many evil and despicable things, and this may have well been one of them? However, I am always skeptical of flashy oratory and lofty gimmicks. Show me the proof!

As some have said, the US was carrying out bombing raids in Iraq long after the First Gulf War ended. This missile strike was part of it, and it goes with a long line of military actions. As for justification, that is matter of conjecture and opinion. None of us have seen the evidence being claimed to have been retrieved by the US law enforcement and intelligence. As I said earlier, Bill Clinton could sell ice to Eskimos and make bombings feel like a Swedish massage.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

I believe this is the classic example of enlightened self interest. Clinton couldn't have failed to realize that avenging the Bush assassination plot helped build a deterrence that some foreign interest might try and do something nasty to him some day. I don't think it REALLY justified missile attacks into a foreign nation though. Maybe a SEAL team coming and going in the night? Not missiles though.

Watching this video also reminds me of what being Presidential looked like. It wasn't uncommon back then, of course and I disliked Clinton intensely, but given the last two, over ten years? I almost miss him in the White House.

Clinton is a bloody criminal. He's just as dirty as the Bushes and Obama.

People favor Clinton because times were a lot better, but he helped to further the agenda that has us up the creek right now.

reply to post by Jakes51


I agree with you on the most part. Since Saddam tried to kill our former president, then it represents a threat to the United States of America so the Clinton was within the right to launch cruise missiles strikes on Iraq in 1993. It seems that Saddam did want to threaten the US. He was so butthurt since we send the Iraqi Army packing out of Kuwait and back to where they belong. Ya i know of crouse i know that we bombed IRaq several times in the 1990s during a Gulf War ceasefire. Even Iraqi forces even tried to shoot down U.S. warplanes over no-fly-zones and SAddam offered $14,000 money for anyone to shoot it down. That's itself was an act of war.

But some felt that Clinton should just because of personal revenge. You could look up several links that people never see before on the top.

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

I believe this is the classic example of enlightened self interest. Clinton couldn't have failed to realize that avenging the Bush assassination plot helped build a deterrence that some foreign interest might try and do something nasty to him some day. I don't think it REALLY justified missile attacks into a foreign nation though. Maybe a SEAL team coming and going in the night? Not missiles though.

Watching this video also reminds me of what being Presidential looked like. It wasn't uncommon back then, of course and I disliked Clinton intensely, but given the last two, over ten years? I almost miss him in the White House.

Clinton is a bloody criminal. He's just as dirty as the Bushes and Obama.

People favor Clinton because times were a lot better, but he helped to further the agenda that has us up the creek right now.

I sure won't argue, and that is why I intensely disliked him. Truth be known, Reagan is the only one I really feel respect for and I still don't know quite how that relative outsider ever managed to get in between the Presidential pawns most seem to have functioned as going back decades.

There is still a lot to be said for the benefits we all enjoyed when appearances still mattered to TPTB and keeping populations generally content and satisfied was considered important. It's hard to say that someone who passed away in..say, the late 90's and never saw everything start coming apart could be said to have lived a poor life......despite much of the comfort being based on a crumbling system, even then.

It's a shame the game couldn't have played out another 20 years or so. My son would at least have gotten a taste of what we all grew up knowing, right?