Story Comments
Posted by: djn3nunez3 1 year, 1 month ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
94%
djn3nunez31 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(Operation Desert Storm) began on January 16, 1991, two years before the end of his term.
Reply
And Off topic he(Pappa_Bush) did write this about invading and occupying Iraq:
We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/h...-
-
-
86%
splitrch1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush Sr. isn't a dastardly person like Jr. is. It is too bad his brains didn't make it into W's head. The problems we have are a result of W's feelings of inadequacy (well founded I might add).
Reply
Senior had 2 problems - the economy turned sour (Voodoo Economics bit his ass - not Reagan's and Ross Perot split the Republican ticket enabling Clinton to win the Presidency).
As far as the video clip goes I think Bill Kristol and the Fox Noise talking heads are trying to scare the sheep and the fence sitters away from voting for Obama. Kristol repeats the lie that Obama would sit down with our enemies with no precondition. Obama has repeatedly explained himself. They only spout what the sheep will buy.
Neoconism is about to land on the dung heap of history. -
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not sure about the interim period. However the first gulf war need not have been fought. GWHB snookered Saddam into invading Kuwait. Why would he do that? Well he is an ex Navy pilot with strong ties to the military. He just could stomach the cuts that the end of the cold war was bringing to the military(and military contractors). What better way than to turn their ally into the new Hitler and frighten Americans into defending the freedom....er,..um the Kingdom of Kuwait.
Reply
I retrospect this snooker turned out to be a good thing. Why? Because Saddam, was developing a nuclear capacity, undetected by his enabling allies in the West. I say enabling because Saddam would never had gotten the materials had Raygun not taken him off the list of nations who supported terrorism. That allowed Saddam to buy Western technology from us and our other allies. Saddam even sent undercover procurment agents to get items that even the Rayguns wouldn't let him have, right under their noses. Anyway the facilities were destroyed by bombs during the run-up to the first war and Saddam was never able to rebuild them.-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> GWHB snookered Saddam into invading Kuwait. Why would he do that?
Reply
I don't know. I also don't know HOW he did that. "Snookering" Saddam into invading Kuwait assumes that Saddam was either an idiot or a trator (or both) willing to bring a disaster to his own country in order to please a foreign "snookerer".
I'm very sceptical about arguments based on an assumtion that everyone is an idiot.
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
Ratskii
german-shepard
LumFan
miklkit
amazed
BillieMaxer
fsev41
splitrch
Candida
blowback
dissent
hefaa1
Osbama_lin_Biden
MacBookForMe
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.