do you know what that phrase means, bill? a clue is that it invokes a military action utilising a technology that some pronounce "nuke -yoo-lur".
Dennis Miller is one of my favorites and his favorite metaphor for a while was heat and sand make glass and when we're done the whole place should look like Superman's dad's apartment.
but the point is; i had a desire to kick some major arab ass. any arab ass. real hard. i wanted payback.
I wanted some a$$ but was none too sure who's. When it was established that it was Bin Ladin, for sure, and that he was in the Tora Bora Mountain Range; my thought was to bust out one of the really big H bombs, like a 50 mega-ton variety (1,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima or Nagasaki
), make sure we had a ton of cameras on it and vaporize
an entire mountain into a valley (literally). I thought that message would be heard around the world and whoever we threatened next would take our word for our seriousness. So, I feel ya.
once i was honest with myself about those feelings, i got over that knee jerk response pretty quick. some didn't.
Mine wasn't kneejerk, and I didn't get over it. I still think the net loss of life created by that display would have saved many times that number of lives in future conflicts.
so bottom line for me, bill, is that taking iraq is an issue, but the bigger issue is that it was done using falsity to gain acceptance from the congress, media and citizenry.
As I've already indicated; I understand that complaint and even agree with it... but IMO it doesn't overshadow the need to have done the work in the first place. More in a minute. :wink:
DontTreadOnMe wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:
Papa Bush was wrong when he didn't finish the job.
i held that view for a very long time. remember how it was played that it was the u.n.'s fault ? "butros ghali wouldn't let us!"
Bush chose to pull back to stay in agreement with the UN... so while ultimately it was Bush's call... blaming the UN isn't totally wrong either. He was doing the work under there name, after all.
we now know from his own words that bush sr. predicted the entanglements that we are currently wading through in iraq. he was smarter about that than i ever gave him credit for.
Yes, he accurately accessed the enormity of the problems we'd face if we removed the mass murderer which made avoiding the problems seem like the better plan. There was hope, I suppose, that after such a swift kick in the a$$ Saddam would realize the futility of further criminal behavior and resistance. But, alas, it wasn't to be. We can't know what the cost in human lives would have been to finish the job then
but we can assume it would have been hefty. But, we can't deny what the cost of not finishing the job was, can we? Millions of Iraqis paid the ultimate price for the delay between Bush and Bush. Millions. Since Sr. had encouraged an uprising only to turn his back on those who listened I can only assume the task of winning hearts and minds is more daunting today
But; do you know what would have changed if we hadn't gone back?
, only if we were lucky and Saddam didn't resume attempting to obtain WMD once the sanctions were lifted. Its no stretch to imagine that he would or that he'd use them if he could.
So, not wanting to deal with the "quagmire" or whatever name you want to put on the current situation is the legitimate, understandable, reason that neither Bush Sr. nor Clinton addressed Saddam's defiance, in any meaningful way. Some think the price of Millions of Iraqis Murdered was a fair price to pay to avoid this seemingly hopeless to some problem. I do not.
I agree wholeheartedly that the shoddy sales techniques were deplorable and will not argue with that. However, if, in the days following 9-11, Bush had delivered a message like he did on inauguration day about freeing the oppressed masses to prevent their wanting to become terrorists, explained Saddam's true crimes, and announced that Iraq would be his next target if he didn't accept exile
I truly believe the speech would have been met with a sea of applause. Everyone wanted to hear that we'd make no distinction between the countries that harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves, remember? He could have easily slipped mass-murdering despots into that equation and no one would have batted an eye, IMHO.
This means he did a lousy job of selling his objective. NOT that the objective was unjust. The millions of murdered Iraqis since 1991 are just as dead.
I've ranted long enough here; but I'd also like to mention that I read today that Kim Jong IL has cut the food to the already starving masses in half. :sad: Sanctions and not interfering there like the military had planned out in the early 90's has resulted in millions of dead there too. At least 2 and some say as many as 10 million people, a third of the population may have already been systematically starved to death despite being the on of the largest recipients of international aid.
This "wait em out" approach is only enriching the monsters, who're only becoming more dangerous with first world comforts and weapons at the price of the masses and it makes me sick that people think the blind eye is more humane.
Come on back to the hawk stance, my friend; it's not about pride or stupidity or bloodlust
it's about people.
now for the important question... "occom" ? like the town in northern california ?
Nope, like William of Occam but I'm a lousy speller. :wink:
(I've seen it spelled half a dozen ways, but seemingly chose one of rarest.