Bob Blakely wrote:
Regarding Eactivist's post:
No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense
is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To
assume that the President of the US, Prime Minister of Briton, Prime
Minister of Australia have such powers. To assert that they have
dictatorial power would betray great ignorance.
We came to the defense of an ally, Kuwait - one of the few ME states
that were reasonably friendly with the western world. In the prosecution
of the war we prevailed, but listening to coalition forces, we backed
off and left Saddam with his country.
In the negotiation to end the
hostilities, Saddam accepted 14 or so articles as a condition to end
hostilities and to keep his position as leader of Iraq. He then
proceeded to violate every single one of those articles required to end
the war maintain his (and his government's and his party's) position.
Many times over. He did this continually over a period of 12 years!
These were acts of war and the war resumed because of these violations.
[...]
Well said, Bob.
We have so many with memories that are so convenient.
I separated out the above paragraph. Read it by itself!
He had his chances, he accepted all the conditions thereto, and
proceeded to break all his promises over YEARS!
He's damned lucky he wasn't dead!
Does anyone remember the Iraqis who said they were aghast at how we
treated him!
We asked what they were talking about.
And they said, conquerors alway kill the enemy leaders. It's the way of
warefare in the Eastern world!
Doesn't anyone remember that?
> While there were two campaigns, it's an error to think that there were
> two Gulf wars.
Absolutely so! Doesn't _anyone_ remember Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld saying, this war is going to last a long, long time. Yeers and
years. That's the nature of our enemy.
And even he failed to consider all the consequences of a prolonged war
in Iraq.
See:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1
keith whaley
and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from
responding to an outright attack (Pearl Harbor). Or even rushing to
the defense of
one's allies.
But I shouldn't have said that much. And I'll stop here.
Toooo late :)
Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy.
The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military
actions
in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott,
a freeze
of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping.
The only
choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia and with the the
Americans
firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour they had to neutralize the American
fleet
or cave into their demands to get out of China.
It was anything but an un-provoked or "outright" attack, it was a
response to
American policy.
