Huey, this isn't the beginning, but it's a good place to start. It shows the whole basis for GST's position, which rested on the argumentative fallacy know as "appeal to authority" because he could not produce facts to support his position and had to rely on the argument "Schwarzkopf said it and he should know."
Message 18134020
You can jump straight from there to my post to you last night, which I think answers GST's challenge fairly completely, and based on facts.
Message 18140992
As for what conclusions one might draw about today's situation, read my post to Victor of last night. Opponents of Bush are the ones playing "Monday morning quarterback" in an attempt to paint Saddam as no more of a threat now than then or to paint Bush's motives as being related to his father's failure to "finish the job" (or as revenge).
Message 18140861
The things about 1991 that matter today are not what we should or shouldn't have done then, but rather what we have, or should have learned since then. First of all, Saddam never lived up to the requirements for a permanent cessation of Gulf War hostilities and can't be trusted to do so ever. Second, the growth in numbers, organization, financial capacity, reach and brutality of global terrorist organizations, together with Saddam's demonstrated willingness to support terror and to use WMDs, can only lead to the conclusion that Saddam's continued development and possession of WMDs poses a grave threat to the security of the United States and it's allies in the region and the world.
That is the rationale behind disarming Iraq today, whether done through diplomatic pressure and inspections or done through military action. And here's where the anti-Bush crowd gets really ridiculous - claiming that Bush's real objective is not to disarm Iraq, but to - take your pick - get revenge, fix his father's mistake, distract the American public from the economy, or seize oil for his greedy Republican oil CEO buddies.
The truth is that Bush's objective has always been to disarm Iraq and render Saddam harmless, but like Congress in 1998, he concluded that sanctions and inspections and voluntary compliance would never work, and regime change was the only way to accomplish the underlying objective.
Regards,
Bob |
