Tuesday, December 16, 2003

I have looked everywhere...

To find an article worth posting and talking about. I have read a lot about the capture of Saddam. I started to read about the capture, but it got old in thrity mins.

But i found this beauty later on today.


In the article he seems to support Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong's, which together managed to kill about half as many people that died in WW2. And these two guys were not even fighting each other, they were just trying to rule their countries.

check these links


A qoute from the above article

Whether one liked Saddam Hussein or not, he was the legitimate President of a great Arab nation, and his humiliation was the humiliation of all Arabs.

I bet the ones who died are real humiliated.

and Just to finish it off

But Chivalry and Honour, so dear to an Arab heart, are not American virtues: the US dared to attack Iraq only after ten years of UN sanctions disarmed it.

It will take a little while longer to refute this remark, but just to give you an idea of why we took so long take over iraq.

Read this article.


The poster of the article wants you to relate the present bush adminstration to the past one which did not take over Saddam. And make it seem like GWB is the evil dude.

The comments that Bush himself made, do sound a lot like today's situation, until you get to this part

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

...and ...

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

In short, the main reasons why we did not finish the job were unsuccessful, we did not win broad international support or make the world any safer. So 12 years later after the Gulf war we are trying somthing different. I am very intrested to see what happens.


No comments: