this is exactly what i am talking about. If the sun was out they would tell you it was night time just to be contrary. There is no real critical thinking going on there, its brainwashing.
"How about the fact that it was entirely a US decision not to go after Saddam in 1991?" Uh Duh, if you read my post and knew something about history you wouldnt' embarass yourself like that. The U.S. caved in to international pressure and left Sadam to face U.N. sanctions. Thats history, thats reality.
Are you out of your mind? Do you REALLY believe that the US didn't decide not to go after Saddam in 91? That someone else made that decision? Christ man, you are a living example of being brainwashed.
sounds like the diplomatic disaster created by the administration and its chickenhawk advisors.... if they had only played the system intelligently and maturely, there could have been a favorable solution to this, global support and participation in the financing. instead they went the la-z-boy rambo route, complete with useless insults and childish rhetoric and 'freedom fries' -- the only thing gained is a greater share of the bill and even more contempt for and hatred of America, the last thing she needs. btw, agree with your post.
alfonso, pu-lease! On one hand you want the US to follow the UN process and not go on their own path (which is what they are doing now) but on the other hand you criticise them for following the UN process and not going on their own path (which is what they did in 1991). You can't have it both ways. What I can guarantee is that had the US gone after Saddam in 1991 and removed him, Mamas boys like you would have been screaming that this was NOT in the UN resolution.
Babak, do you really think that if the US had decided it was in their best interests to go into Iraq in 1991 that they could not have convinced the UN to authorise it? The fact is that it was decided by the US that it was not in their best interests to go into Iraq in 1991. Powell himself said things exactly to that effect. Others in the current regime too, I think (I will have to check). And it is certain that many of the leading supporters of this war, in a policy advisory role, were against going into Iraq in 1991. It is clear that had the US wanted to go into Iraq in 1991 -- given the international support Desert Storm had -- it only needed to say so and UN approval would have been a cinch. Regardless of how I would have felt about the US going into Iraq under those circumstances (1991, UN authority), it would have been a completely legal move. Whether I would now, as a "mama's boy", be crying about it is immaterial.
No it would not have been a legal move because the UN resolutions were about liberating Kuwait by forcing Iraqi forces out of it. There was nothing regarding going into Iraq to change the regime. I am calling you on this because you are employing shody thinking. You want to have it both ways. To criticise the US when it goes with the UN and then to criticise it when it doesn't. Pick one and stick to it. Otherwise you come across as someone who has a personal hatred of the US and is not engaging in logical thought.
Babak, I'm not talking about the existing resolutions. I'm saying that had the US considered it in its best interests to go to Iraq in 1991 it -- because of the popularity of Desert Storm -- could probably have easily gotten a new resolution. I'm not trying to have it both ways at all, so you're not calling me on anything. Do you mean to say you don't recall the discussions about and calls for (by various groups) for going into Iraq? Do a search on it. The fact is that it WAS being discussed, but it was decided not to be sought. The language speaking against doing anything Iraq concern, more or less, the Mid East and Iraq, but if you just think about it a little, it's not hard to understand that the people speaking out against going in to Iraq would also consider undesirable for the US. Who was speaking out against it? Colin Powell, in 1992: ""Saddam Hussein is a terrible person, he is a threat to his own people. I think his people would be better off with a different leader, but there is this sort of romantic notion that if Saddam Hussein got hit by a bus tomorrow, some Jeffersonian democrat is waiting in the wings to hold popular elections. (Laughter.) You're going to get -- guess what -- probably another Saddam Hussein. It will take a little while for them to paint the pictures all over the walls again -- (laughter) -- but there should be no illusions about the nature of that country or its society. And the American people and all of the people who second-guess us now would have been outraged if we had gone on to Baghdad and we found ourselves in Baghdad with American soldiers patrolling the streets two years later still looking for Jefferson." Daniel Pipes, 1991 ""Iraqis, their neighbors and the outside world have all been served reasonably well by the delicate balance of power of the past nine months which leaves Iraq neither too strong nor too weak. And we still are. Yet this balance is a one-time thing; when undone, it is permanently gone. Now, as then, getting rid of Saddam increases the prospects of Iraqi civil war, Iranian and Syrian expansionism, Kurdish irredentism and Turkish instability. Do we really want to open these cans of worms?" Thomas Friedman "This war was not about healing. This war was never about competing visions for the future of the Arab world. It was about a thief who had to be stopped Anyway, I'm glad you think that 1991 wasn't about going after Saddam because of lack of authority, because I'll take it then that you don't consider anything in Resolutions 678 and 687 to have any support for the current action.
I'd be curious to know how many here have lived in Iraq under Saddam's regime. Quite a few comments have been made about the degree of freedom Iraqi's enjoy, Saddam's evil nature, etc. Where do you all get your information? I am not arguing your point nor do I feel I know any better. I am suspect of what I read, hear on TV, etc. And for this tendency to question I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. Likewise, I wouldn't claim anyone here a conspiracy theorist for not immediately buying some stock because a Bloomberg radio guest recommended it. There are a lot of motives at work in war, in politics, in everyday life. I am trying to determine what this war is about too, but feel I cannot be adamant about any position because of a lack of knowledge. As traders I have seen many of you post "cut your losses quick." You entered the trade thinking you were correct, so why exit so quickly? Isn't this a defense against what you might not know?