In Reply to: Re: Funny how that's what they're saying now posted by Don't agree on April 04, 2003 at 07:40:19:
But then what do I know?
"There were U.N. forces there and they had a UN resolution that let them do so much, but not take over Iraq."
You're saying what I'm saying. Bush said the US and coalition forces had no mandate to remove Saddam, just to get him out of Kuwait, and Desert Storm achieved that. He ADDED, that getting rid of Saddam would be a problem because of the power vacuum and the Iraqi nation falling apart. He also deliberately allowed Saddam to contain the uprisings in the north and south, lest the country break apart. These are facts. It is also a fact that Bush wanted the Baath party to throw out Saddam, not ethnic groups. You can look up these facts, I didn't make them up. If I can dig up more quotes from the Bush administration I'll post them here.
"Go back and check the facts."
I hope you can see, I did, and as a rule, I tend to do so.
"But this time the UN would not give them a resolution and so there are no UN troops."
No dispute there. But if you check the facts, the UN did give them resolution # 1441 which the US interpreted to mean they could invade Saddam if he messed around with weapons inspections. And that he did.
"You forgot all the hoopla over the voting? Bush's
speech may have been to pacify the UN and diplomacy. That's why we need to stop trying to be so diplomatic and do what we do best."
Do you mean Bush was trying to win votes at home running for a second term in office? What do you mean by doing what we do best? DO you mean going to war is the best thing the US can do? (sincere question)
"These types of diplomatic tactics could very well be the root cause of a lot of the world's problems today."
I don't agree with diplomacy alone. Someone here said we don't live in utopia, and I couldn't agree more.