In a message dated 8/20/2005 11:49:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: didn't bring up Clinton because, what with Haiti and Somalia, I thought there might be room for argument. ========= Well, sort of. But as I recall, Clinton didn't START anything. And our involvement was sort of minimal compared to the Gulf War and Iraq.
It's sort of relative, like you said, do we clarify between a president starting something or getting sucked into an ongoing conflict? Even those dividing lines aren't always clear. Does it depend on how many American dead? How *successful* it was, etc? What is success? Personally I see a difference between Iraq and some other wars. Between Vietnam and some other wars. Whatever. As someone said, Nixon got us out of Vietnam. But my memory is, that at the time, no one saw that as any kind of victory. Just a matter of tapering off and finally giving up. So these things aren't always clear. But I see a difference between the U.S. having heavy involvement and light involvement and a president starting it or not. Marnie aka Doe
