Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 10 2004, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 10 2004, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 10 2004, 08:36 PM
Boo hoo.
The only reason he was worried about Iran was because he invaded it twenty years before and knew they weren't going to forget it. Why feel sorry for him?
|
Who said I feel sorry for him? I'm speaking from a position of logic.
It was just idiotic diplomacy. If Bush really wanted to find a peaceful resolution, he would have understood the situation and had been more patient instead of turining it into a situation where Hussein couldn't comply with the demands.
Even after the UN inspectors claimed they were making progress, Bush then changed his demands to include exile for Hussein. After that, why would anyone comply with the demands? It was obvious that Bush was going to get his war no matter what Saddam Hussein did.
BTW, Iraq invaded Iran at the urging of, and with the support of the U.S. They have a lot of blame in that war too. [/b][/quote]
If Bush really wanted to find a peaceful resolution, he would have understood the situation and had been more patient instead of turining it into a situation where Hussein couldn't comply with the demands.
Understood what?
In the months leading into the conflict, the UN passed a resolution which escalated the situation and promised "grave consequences" if he failed to comply. We can argue if that meant outright war but obviously the clock on 12 years of sanctions was getting closer to midnight by international agreement. Saddam NEVER complied and NEVER intended to. The Duelfer Report, which torched the Bush WMD argument this week, ALSO makes that clear.
You're making excuses for a guy who never complied and never intended to comply.
There's certainly a debate as to whether or not "grave consequences" meant a green light for war or even if it was the right thing to do, but blaming everyone else for the situation Saddam put himself in doesn't wash.
He was the architect of his own demise, a guy who had used WMD, started two wars and who felt he could stay alive only by at least maintaining a myth he had WMD and would use it.
Not exactly the definition of a victim!!
BTW, Iraq invaded Iran at the urging of, and with the support of the U.S. They have a lot of blame in that war too.
As the war broke out, an unnamed State Department official, with a quote often used by left wing publications to beat America to death with:
"We don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."<
At the moment Saddam crossed the border into Iran, I believe he was armed entirely by the Soviets and to some extent, France, as was the common practice of many Arab mideast regimes at the time. In the months leading into the conflict, Jimmy Carter's man Zbignew Brezinzki (sp), in line with The Carter Doctrine, had said the USA had no reason to view Iraq as an kind of adversary (unlike Iran) which might be construed as pushing a button somewhere. The USA had no diplomatic relations with Iraq/Iran at the time.
Once it got going, the USA and the Soviets saw the opportunities to mutually antagonize and profit, both sides keeping the two combatants constantly at war for almost a decade, strengthening one when the other got strong enough to win.
Implying the USA started that war is an incredible stretch. I'm sure they were clapping their hands in delight but it would be akin to me saying: "I wish FlamesAddiction would quit this thread." I would be delighted if you did, but if you take that action its entirely up to you, not me. :P
Cowperson