Quote:
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
quote:
Originally posted by Animal:
They retreated because they couldn't get to Saddam. The Bunker Buster the US developed didn't work, and Bush Sr. was losing public support for a war they had no business being in anymore. I could be mistaken on this, however so don't take that as gospel.
Unfortunately unless the US can provide a good reason for going after him again, other than "because" I fear he'll be twirling his moustache and tying damsels to train tracks for a few years yet.
|
Retreat never happened on the coalition side in the Gulf War, the overwhelming majority of the US public was behind the effort, and the "bunker busters" worked very well. They didn't kill Saddam with the bunker busters because they didn't use them against him specifically.
The UN mandate wasn't for the removal of the Iraqi leader, but instead for the ouster of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The criticism Bush, Sr. receives for not "finishing" the war is a bit unjust. The occupation of Baghdad, and the removal of Saddam was never part of the UN idea. In addition, the US wasn't the only force involved in the Gulf War, and therefore, not the only party responsible for Saddam's continued existance. Does anyone remember a speach were Bush, Sr. said, "He's learned his lesson, let's let him have a fresh start." No? That's because there never was one.[/QUOTE]I thought the bunker buster was designed specifically to nail Saddam in his lair, perhaps I was mistaken. I've never have put to much stock in government press releases as I beleive that certain information may be left out in the public's best interests.
I firmly beleive, that had Bush Sr the opportunity he would've taken out Hussein without a second thought, and even though many other forces were involved in the liberation of Kuwait, the US was the most powerful.
Like Mark said, the removal of Hussein from power was a second goal. Had that goal been attainable it would've been acheived.