Subj : Why?
To   : Frank Reid
From : Deuce
Date : Mon Oct 03 2005 03:23 pm

  Re: Why?
  By: Frank Reid to Sam Alexander on Mon Oct 03 2005 11:35 am

 > I agree entirely, with the exception of Saddam yielding to U.S. (and, for th
 > matter, UN) demands.  He was a "convicted" criminal of the world based on hi
 > invastion of Kuwait a decade earlier, and he had no "sovereign right" to hid
 > what he was doing.  He lied, deceived and cheated the UN for a decade, until
 > finally came to his senses at the eleventh hour when he realized we were not
 > paper tiger and were coming in again.  Unfortunately, for him and for us, hi
 > last minute conciliations were not enough.
 > 
 > Unfortunately, being powerful also means that you sometimes must wield that
 > power.  If we hadn't invaded, Saddam would still be in power, and he would
 > today be figuring out a way to lie and cheat in his quest to dominate that
 > region.  And we would be on the 45th UN resolution calling for him to play
 > nice.  And, who knows, maybe he would also have finally succeeded in making
 > friends with people of like mind that didn't act under the guise of national
 > borders.
 > 
 > I think only the history books will be able to decide how this chapter of hu
 > civilization plays out... it's impossible to assess it objectively while you
 > in the middle of the play.

Regarding the first paragraph, his last minute conciliations were everything
that was asked for.  It was obvious that there was nothing short of leaving the
country which would satisfy the US (This became most obvious when the US said
"We will invade unless Saddam leaves the country").  My personal feeling on
this one is that the US had to move to that position for the simple fact that
Saddam was caving on everything the US wanted at that point... they needed
something Saddam would not cave on, and that was al they could think of (I'm
quite sure that at that point if the US had said "We will invade unless you
send us your family" the family would have been on the next plane to the US).

Regarding paragraph two, The first half is solidly correct.  The second half
seems to make some kind of insunuation I can't completely pick up on (Possibly
a terrorist link?).

Regarding the third paragraph, the US is in the middle of the play, Canada and
Barbados are not.  That paragraph almost seems to give us a hook to hang a "We
can look at it objectively... you can't" argument on.  Speaking for myself, I
never expect an american to give an objective view of anything involving
american politics... not even after the history books are written.

---
 þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

.