I am not sure what if the ROE changed or who ordered them, but hindsight would seem to lean towards shooting every student they could who were invading soverign American territory. The following link is where I also took the information about the Shah and getting cancer treatment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
"At first the student's plan to only make a symbolic occupation, release statements to the press and leave when government security forces came to restore order, was reflected in placards saying `Don't be afraid. We just want to set-in`. When the embassy guards brandished firearms, the protesters retreated, one telling the Americans, `We don't mean any harm.`[33] But as it became clear the guards would not use deadly force and that a large angry crowd had gathered outside the coumpound to cheer the occupiers and jeer the hostages, the occupation changed.[34] According to one embassy staff member, buses full of demonstrator began to appear outside the embassy shortly after the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line broke through the gates.[35]"
That figures. Muslim militants in any other part of the world, tend to use students and children for their dirty work. That actually makes sense. Of course I'm wondering if they didn't have any tear gas...
Fair enough, Its just that there are about as many actual conservatives in DC as there are bald eagles. As a casual observer to the right wing, I notice a lot of cannibalization among thier own. I listened to Michael Savage for about 10minutes this evening, and he spent most of the time trashing other people who claim to be conservative because they maybe werent as conservative as him.
I know its probably meaningless, but this is a continious observation I have noticed about the GOP.
All politicians try and portray themselves as not being leftist. Even hard core leftist, try and portray themselves as being more right. Clinton was supposed to be a "centrist" and a "moderate democrat". This is obvious since no one gets elected on the platform of "I'll raise your taxes, expend government, and takeover all industry".
The meaninglessness of this point is that you could say the same for those on the left. Is there anyone that's a 100% socialist? A few perhaps. But most are in the spectrum, just like the right. That's why I vote for the most conservative candidate that I can trust.
Well originally what I was eluding to is that there is a laundry list of what the Bush Administration has used to justify invading Iraq. All of those issues would apply to several other countries that we have not undertaken war with, there are two key differences I see between NKorea, Pakistan(a few others also) is that Iraq has considerable wealth and Saddam "once tried to kill my father"
So which of those other nations agreed to a cease-fire and broke it, while defying the UN repeatedly, kicking out inspectors, and refusing to disarm?
Remember, the Saddam once tried to kill my father, doesn't work because all the democrats supported war against Saddam to. You can't use that excuse when Bill Clinton supported going into Iraq.
Secondly, Clinton was criticised heavily over withdrawing from Somalia as you mentioned earlier. But Reagan gets a pass over withdrawing from Lebanon after the barracks bombing. Also there are plenty of places in Africa that would fit the bill when it comes to justifying using force, despotic leaders, ties with terrorists, invading neighbors, and access to WMDs etc etc. Why havent we gone after Mugabe, or the situation in Rawanda, Liberia?
Um... if you think Clinton was criticized for just withdrawing, then you don't know the reason for the criticism. I don't even know where you came up with that really.
The problem with the Black Hawk down issue:
1. We were in a place we had no business being in.
In Vietnam, we were trying to stop the Soviets from spreading communism. In Kuwait, we stopped Saddam from taking over an ally. In Iraq we stopped Saddam from violating the agreed conditions of a cease-fire. In Mogadishu, we has absolutely no reason to be there at all.
2. Once there, Clinton failed to provide necessary support.
We didn't have enough air support, not enough armored vehicles, not enough personnel. The administration greatly underestimated the ability of the local militia, and how equipped the militia would be. In an effort to not be too "high-profile", our under equipped, under armored troops were sent to do a job they didn't have the man power for, and the result was Black Hawk down.
3. Once we ended up losing some people, Clinton got scared of the poll numbers, and canceled the whole thing.
So let's review. He went in to Somalia half-cocked, screwed up the mission, and then ran like a whipped puppy when it fell apart. If you are going to do something, you do it full bore. You level everything you have at it, and go until you succeed.
If you are not going do it, and do it well, then don't do it at all. Don't go in sorta lamely with as few people as possible, and then wonder why they get slaughtered. Any military strategist knows this. When you need 10 people, you send 20. If you need 5 helicopters, you send 10 and a couple of planes.
But democrats universally don't do this. JFK and the bay of pigs. Carter and the hostage rescue. LBJ and Vietnam.
Did you ever wonder how Nixon get north nam to agree to a cease fire, when LBJ couldn't get them to agree to anything?
LBJ, had been specifically agreeing to every bombing run. They'd bomb a few days, then they couldn't bomb for a month. Then they'd bomb again, and it'd be another month. We don't want to come across like bullies. We don't want to level the entire country. We don't want to be too "high-profile".
Nixon did the opposite. He removed all the restraints and stopped micro-managing the war. He allowed uninterrupted continuous bombing. If the enemy builds a shack in the forest, mark it and bomb it. Ho Chi Mihn was forced to sign a cease-fire.
Ill concede France, I dont like France any ways, but what about the Germans, who not only didnt support military action, but basically had control of the main source of intel justifying invasion, and warned about the claims being made by curveball.
You said yourself they had the main source of intel justifying it. As far as I'm concerned, there's two types of people. People who complain, and people who act. You are either a solution to a problem, or a cause of it.
Germany chose to be a cause. They sat on their butt, and did nothing but say "hey that Saddam is a real problem. Someone should do something about it". We chose to act. To me, we're a better people than Germany because of it. Any idiot can cry about something. It takes real men to do the job that needs done.
You see, we will probably never agree about the wisdom of attacking Iraq when we did, and the justification Bush used to gain the means to do so.
It has been flawed from the begining. The propaganda about Saddam and 9-11 was bunk. The WMDs, way overblown, threat to the US and neighbors...hardly.
Like I said before. Anyone can complain. The situation is a little different when you know that if you do nothing, and the reports turn out true, that thousands of innocent civilians may die because of your inaction.
It's pretty easy to sit here and make 20/20 hindsight judgments. It's a bit different when you are the one receiving reports that Saddam is making unmanned aircraft that are able to carry a nuclear payload, and have mapping software of the US installed on them.
Then the gross negligence in the war planning and troops levels, and intelligence in terms of the situation on the ground before the invasion up until today. I will concede that things are improving. But it shouldnt have ever came to this.
I can agree with that. It's actually the same lesson as before. If your going to go in, go in full bore. I agree we should have sent a greatly increased amount of troops than originally planned. That said, this is where Bush greatly differs from typical democrats. Unlike Clinton who pulled out the instant things didn't go perfectly, Bush doubled troop levels, and accomplished the mission.
