<<After all, we left Saddam in power after he brutally invaded and occupied Kuwait>
No, we PUT Sadam in power... our track record is exactly why IMO it simply doesn't work to impose our [ill]will. There has historically BEEN no good intentions to the population of those countries, only ourselves. On top of that, in virtually ALL cases the "threaten my security" was simply misguided. I see no reason to continue on with the same ideas that have not been implimented properly in the past.
<<I'd love to hear about those "other means".. >
First of all it really must be agreed apon and acceptable to some international body [currently the UN would fit the bill] or it won't be viewed as ligitimate internationally. So in the long run would be doomed to failure.
So IMO stumbling along with the UN on IRAQ could have been an heroic accomplishment leading to a future blueprint for such actions. The first few times are always uncertain and strenuous, whether it's hitting a baseball, or turning the UN into the international police. So the US plays the freaking school kid that takes his ball home. Completely immature idiocy IMO. The governement freaked out, cooler heads DID NOT prevail IMO.
As for the rest of your argument, as I stated before... lots of people [governments, UN, etc] think there were other means, like above or otherwise talked about in the press. It doesn't even mean there wouldn't have been an invasion, in fact what an opportunity missed in developing the blueprint for such action!
DAK
BTW 1.).... I wonder if Bush ever learned anything about 'options'. Once you exercise your options, you lose ALL your premium value that was remaining till expiration. IMO Bush pissed away a lot of premium.
BTW 2.).... I know from the governments "immature child" standpoint, schaggin thru the UN was unacceptable. But IMO nothing but LONG TERM GOODWILL to populations will hold up as successful policy. It'll take decades, but so what? Are we here for the next blip in economic numbers or our Grandchildren???? One has to wonder if the "flawed system" might not be our own. Why don't we start with discountinuing selling arms:
<<intelligence report from February 2003 insisted that the Iraqi army practically had no night vision equipment except for those systems installed on some tanks and serviceability of even that equipment was questioned. In reality, however, the coalition troops have learned that the Iraqis have an adequate number of night vision surveillance systems and targeting sights even at the squadron level and they know how to properly use this equipment. A particular point of concern [for the coalition] is the fact that most Iraqi night vision systems captured by the coalition are the latest models manufactured in the US and Japan. After analyzing the origins of this equipment the US begun talking about the "Syrian connection". >>
We sell more shit than can hurt people to anyone with a buck than anyone else. Whats up with that?? |
