SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Les H who wrote (38076)3/12/1999 10:14:00 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
Bush expected the combined forces of the Shi'ites, Kurds, and democratic opposition, along with potential rivals within the Iraqi establishment, to eventually lead to Saddams downfall. The only way in which he could hold the coalition together was to limit the objective, and besides, the American people were not prepared to occupy Iraq to shore up a successor regime. Bush's expectations were reasonable, and it is still not clear why the regime has continued to this point. One answer is that Saddam had so much built in redundancy in his military establishment that we didn't do nearly as much damage as we thought we had. Another is that there was little preparation or coordination among the opponents of the regime. One can only hope that the years have led to greater planning, and that any new initiatives will not be easily crushed.



To: Les H who wrote (38076)3/12/1999 11:09:00 AM
From: one_less  Respond to of 67261
 
<<The U.S. has all but acknowledged that the air strikes, officially acts of self defense for aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zones, are more of a creeping war of attrition. One senior State Department official described the strikes to the Washington Post as a "mini undeclared war." >>

This statement is probably no surprise to anyone, but it reeks of more deceitfulness by the powerful and elite. The means seem to be more and more justified by the ends these days.



To: Les H who wrote (38076)3/12/1999 12:01:00 PM
From: cody andre  Respond to of 67261
 
The US policy versus Iraq can be summed up in two words: STATUS QUO.

When Saddam disappears from the scene (either premature or in due course) the country will be thrown into anarchy with Iran potentially moving in. Thus, at present, our policy vis-a-vis Iran is much more important than bombing Iraq. By the way, aerial campaigns have not solved anything since the Douhouet doctrine came into being in the mid-20s. Witness London blitzkrieg, the Ruhr bombing, etc.