ALL BUSH SUPPORTERS READ THIS
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 09-02-2004 - 10:03am |
'In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....
There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of
our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land."
If only his son could read.'


Pages
interesting post (no 27 in thread), thank you. I do have to make a comment about one part tho:
"Americans aren't used to having their homeland attacked in such a horrific way. I lived in the UK for 8 years, and it always shocked and saddened me when the IRA, etc. bombed places in England - heck I was in Manchester the day they blew up half the city centre in June of '96. I didn't understand why you all put up with that."
Put up with it? What would you suggest we do, bomb Ireland? The Irish problem is a very old one that takes a lot to solve, and we've had some good, bad and indifferent people dealing with it over the years. Overall the situation is improving, and hopefully it will eventually be resolved.
<>
And we're not finished. Going into this, Bush said that we were facing
Renee ~~~
Pages