Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to Why should I allow you to define history so narrowly?

re: Why should I allow you to define history so narrowly?

"I see that you still maintain that our invasion of Iraq is only a logical extension of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Why have you not condemned Bush Senior for not finishing what was apparently a justified invasion while more allies were there to support the effort?"

The Coalition formed with the intention of getting Saddam out of Kuwait, not overthrowing Saddam regime. It was possible for Saddam to decide that he didn't want to fight the coalition. He could have decided to withdraw from Kuwait and there was no compelling need that forced him to blow up Kuwait's oil fields.

Once we had pushed Saddam's miltary out of Kuwait, we then offered Saddam the opportuny to sign a cease fire agreement. What do think would have happenned if Saddam had refused to sign the cease fire agreement? Or had decided play the game of delaying agreeing to sign the cease fire? There was nothing forcing Saddam to sign on the dotted line, other than his army was demolished and he was facing a the strongest miltary power in the world with over 1/2 million soldiers poised to overrun his country.

If he had refused or delayed, Bush Senior would have went to the supporting members of the coalitions, and said, "Look we are letting him off the hook with indisputably reasonable conditions, but he still will not agree to end this war. Therefore we are forced to continue." And the other Coalition members would accordingly have been forced to agree. And it's very probable that before Saddam signed the cease fire agreement, he was clearly told by these other Coalition members (and any other world leader that would talk to him) that this was the best he could hope to get.
So, Saddam agreed to the cease fire agreement then he refused to abide by the agreement he signed. With resolution 1441 being his last chance to comply with this cease fire agreement.
[Btw and finally, any *halfway decent* leader would chosen to step down. Any leader who gave one wit for his people or was in any way responsive any other person, would have found some way to get out of power. But Saddam proved he wasn't a decent leader and wasn't responsive, but rather he was only a low life thug, who murdered and tortured this way into power. Everything was about Saddam, Saddam this, Saddam that. Anyone this crazy, doesn't deserve to control any country or any half-ass glee club.]

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (27 posts)