Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Everyone then believed he had weapons. He had used them before. He had tried covert things against the US before. No exaggerations so far.
After 9/11 to alow the above to be a continuing threat would have been negligence on the part of our government. Despite after the fact rationalizations, we were only allowed to "contain" him such as it was becasue we had 200K troops on his border. In 96 Clinton etal made noises about attacking him based upon what was known. Nothing had changed by 2003 except we could afford to wait and see any longer.
|
1. The sole covert operation I've heard of to date was his attempt to kill Bush I. And as I recall, it was a "Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight" embarrassment - the sort of imbecilic fumbling of an assassination that should have clued us in to the fact that Hussein was more a buffoon than a threat. Anything else? 'Cause I don't see that getting us into a war.
2. Negligence? Hussein wasn't going to attack us. The negligence here was not finishing Afghanistan and failing to grab the Saudis by the throat and demand they stop funding Wahhabism. The negligence was sleeping while Kim got the bomb.
Why did 9/11 make it mandatory for us to deal with Hussein? What duty did an AQ attack impose on us to rid the world of a tin pot dictator? Why didn't we focus the resources in annihilating AQ. Why aren't we paying Pakistan to let us into the provinces to deal with AQ? Why aren't we up the Saudi's asses... reminding them that we'll publicly disown them, leaving them defenseless, and push them toward toppling, at which point we'll take their oil on behalf of a multinational coalition that would be more than thrilled to have the cheap fuel?
The Saudis sit on the biggest oil reserve in the world. And they have no defense. They exist because we say they can. Yet we treat them like they're equals.
Threaded Mode