When we engaged Iraq in Desert Storm, our objectives were met. Whether we would have been "justified" in taking out Saddam is an entirely different issue. But we had a plan, carried it out, and it was over. I have heard directly from Powell this very explanation. (I will be challenged by Max about this, so when I get my scanner working, I will send him a photo of me and Powell together. It was at a fund raiser, and no, we did not have a one on one discussion about it....he told a room of about 600 this very point). As for Aphies doubts about Iraq having the "know how", it really isn't about the ability to build a nuclear bomb. That knowledge is fairly easy to obtain. It is about getting the fissionable material to use in the making. That is why Israel bombed the facility in 1981. Not to stop Iraq from putting together a bomb. It was to stop their ability to produce plutonium or uranium in weapons grade form. I think you can find instructions in a book, or even on the internet on how to build a bomb. Getting the materials is the hard part. peace, Rs7
Trading has made me a lot more aware of politics. I am not sure it is an improvement in my life! I had not read a newspaper or turned on the news in 20 years. Now I have CNBC on all day. What a crazy mixed up world we live in! Hard to tell what is right and wrong anymore.
Bush had a remarkable victory at hand and, he assumed, certain re-election in 1992. He was not going to further commit US forces and assume the political risk of a campaign on Baghdad given: 1) Saddam's willingness to use chemical and biological warfare. 2) The Vietnam Quagmire complex still fresh in the minds of the military and its civilian command. The prospect of a bloody campaign and open-ended commitment was anathema to the White House then. Of course, he went up against a politician who brilliantly framed the 1992 campaign on domestic concerns, on which Bush could not spend his "Gulf War capital" Why is today different? Superpower geopolitical and military risk has diminished, if not altogether disappeared. Today, the US is the sole superpower, but in 1991 the USSR was just beginning its disintegration. The Soviets had several client states in the Middle East and was a serious military contender. Today, Russia's interests in the region are largely commercial. The opportunity exists now for the US to extend greater influence and control in the Middle East with the removal of a 30 year despot, spur democratic change in neighboring countries resulting in friendly states, create a climate to foster an Israeli-Palestinian peace, and PUMP SOME MO OF THAT BLACK GOLD FOR HIS AND cheney's CRONIES TO FEAST ON! Bush is banking on a grand victory. Bush risks all the unknown and unpredictable consequences of military intervention. He hopes that the irresolvable paradox of increased military spending and declining tax rolls won't be reckoned with until after 2004. Maybe he really is worried about the spread of WMD, but I'm too cynical to belive that is his chief motivation.
All I know Bobcathy is its a cold motha today; you guys gotta be freezing ( on the boat ).... Just remember to always do the right thing....peace
are interesting in that over 60% think we should attack Iraq regardless of UN approval. From what the media reports, the "majority" of Americans want UN approval. Makes me wonder if traders in general are less concerned with needing others' approval given the independent nature of being a trader...
considering that the UN recently chose Libya to chair their human rights commission, the idea that they have any moral authority whatsoever is a sick joke.
one thing that just popped into my head is this... iraq invaded kuwait in '90 because the iraqis believe that kuwait is technically their land (historically, it actually IS)...let's not forget that the whole region was divided willy-nilly by the british about 100 yrs ago with little regard for the natives...and total regard for what was good for the british... we're invading iraq because we hate saddam and we're convinced he has terrorist ties and that he will attack US civilians... but does he?? has saddam ever attacked anything american before without provocation from us??? has saddam ever stood behind terrorism?? (paying suicide bombers families 25k is a publicity stunt designed to rally arab support for saddam - it has nothing to do with being pro-terrorism - saddam is playing everyone like fiddles) - saddam has no time and no interest for terrorism - he wants power, oil, and land...the way to get these things is NOT terrorism...look at bin-laden - he has millions of dollars and yet chooses to live in caves - now HE is a guy that is NOT about oil or land, but rather all about terrorism... like i said, saddam is playing us all like fiddles - look at how he is getting the world to rally around iraq and against bush...everything that bush and cheney do just help saddam in the long run by bolstering support for this pudgy old moustached clown... saddam's a tyrant - he terrorizes his neighbors - like the iranians, and the kuwaitis....but last time i checked, texas wasn't anywhere in the middle east... all saddam wants is power. power in the middle east, his homeland. there's oil, too... there are tons of violent, oppressive dictators all over africa... why aren't we attacking them, too?? maybe - just maybe - it's possible that most members of the UN are in fact correct, and that this war with saddam isn't about terrorism but rather about oil... HMM...bush and cheney both have some pretty damn strong ties to oil... it's hard for me to make my point without including some disdain for bush and cheney - but hear me out - is the US attacking iraq all that different from iraq attacking kuwait in 1990?????? morals - you know, looking out for the oppressed iraqi people who essentially have zero civil rights - is noble - but that noble act of helping an oppressed people seems like more of a "oh-by-the-way" excuse for helping out the oil industry than a genuine act of humanitarian aid...i mean, if it wasn't, then why aren't we freeing the people of northern africa (also muslim dictatorships and terrorist training camps, i.e. Algeria) - from their oppression as well??? oh yeah, and why oh why didn't bush, cheney, or reagan care in the early 1980's that saddam was a brutal torturer, rapist, etc. when we were arming him to fight iran?????? maybe because the whole humanitarian concern of the GOP for the oppressed people of iraq is complete BULLSHIT and their only concern is oil... bush has most americans fooled pretty well, but saddam gets my vote for shrewdest politician...