Zoltan... take a breath... get some oxygen to your brain.
Re: " The consensus was that the Iraqi military would kill him."
>>> That might have been the consensus of the village idiots... but I think most people who were even slightly familiar with Saddam's history would have given him at least 50/50 odds of surviving under those circumstances. And there was quite a bit of outrage in America when Bush pulled up short. I believe that America (after Vietnam, etc.) had lost whatever enthusiasm it may have ever had for leaving wars unfinished... and I don't think America EVER had any warmth for the concept of us as mercenaries.
RE: "the US was operating under a UN mandate - and what you describe was not allowed."
>>> 1) So, you're a big fan of the UN, eh Zoltie?
>>> 2) Bunk, anyway. The guy massively winning a war can mostly call the operational shots. Some allies might have pulled away but so what? It would have all been over but the shouting by then.
RE: "It was Clinton who allowed Saddam to live when internal groups were willing to kill him. It was Clinton who let Saddam refuse UN inspections."
>>> There's that monomania of your again! You really ought to get it checked out by a doc :) By the time Clinton came into office (3 years later) there were only two real options left to the 'get rid of Saddam crusade':
A) Startup a war again to finish what was left unfinished by his predecessor (not all that easy without allies or a pretext).
or, B) Mount a sanction campaign (futile as that is) and hope against hope that somehow, somewhere, someone will actually be spurred to violent action against the dictator.
Option #C) (support and mold local opposition forces, and mount a revolution) was pretty-well precluded after Pres. Bush had called upon the Kurds to rise up in opposition to Saddam... promised them our support publicly... and then stood by mutely as they were slaughtered on live TV. After that little bit of mendacity, I think anyone in the region who took the word of an American President would have to have had their head examined....
RE my statements: ...Or earlier, tilting towards Iraq and turning a blind eye to their biological and chemical warfare developments... or even earlier, facilitating armament resupply during the 10 year long, murderous Iran war. - - - and your comment Zoltie: "You are very naive."
>>> Actually, I may be devious... but one thing I'm NOT is naive. Of course I know what the Reagan / Bush goals were while encouraging the Iraq / Iran bloodbath.
>>> But have you ever stopped to think what MIGHT have happened if the war that Iraq started against Iran kept going badly against IRAQ (as it started doing about midway during the 10 year war... when Iran began making advances), and if the Reagan / Bush administration hadn't supplied Saddam with tactical intel. and weapons?
>>> Iran's advances would likely have been limited to the southern Iraqi swamps - where their shia co-religionists mostly live. Any advances further into the Sunni dominated Arab regions of the rest of the Arab mideast would have provoked concerted self-defense efforts (and we, and many others in the west, would have been asked for our help at that point). The failure of Saddam's war would have likely provoked his over-throw AT THAT POINT IN TIME. And the west (principaly the US) would have been much in demand as an ally and protector in frontline Arab states.
>>> I like THAT potential future much better than the one Reagan and Bush left us with....
RE: "Seems if you had had your way the US would be in a real mess today."
>>> I think not. But since there is no way to prove that, if you can't see the logic, then let's just agree to disagree on it. Just repeat to yourself: "Clinton is the root of all evil... Clinton was behind Watergate... Clinton started World War II... Clinton is responsible for everything that is bad in my life today... Clinton is a devil spawned in Hell... Clinton... Clinton... Clinton...."
>>> After a while, I'm sure you'll feel OK. |
