10-29-2002, 12:30 PM
|
#43
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Charean:
As far as Bush and his reasons for going after Saddam: I am not convinced this is for the good of this country. I haven't seen convincing evidence that he is linked to Bin Laden. I also wonder why something was not done sooner when he didn't comply with UN regs. At this point, going in there on our own will only sow dissent with the rest of the UN. I think that would be a huge mistake. Not only would we have only ourselves to rely on, but Saddam may pull in some allies and we may not be able to beat back all of them. From what the White House says, they only want regime change. I am sure that they can pull that off without going to war. Whatever happened to simple assassinations? That would be a LOT more efficient. (And before I get bashed for being Liberal - I am not. I am a moderate and registered Independent. I do not toe party lines of Anyone.)
I'm not knocking you for being a liberal (you aren't) I just disagree 0n your assessment of the hows and whys of our current campaign against Iraq. I think there is ample evidence to warrent our actions and I think it should have been done the first time SH violated his terms of surrender. But only time will tell if it is good for the US or not
As far as us going in to Kuwait: Oddly enough, I was over there. Oil was a factor, but not the main one. As far as most of the military and me were concerned, we were going over there to protect a country that could not defend itself. It was a UN effort and they all went in there to keep Kuwait free of a dictator.
|
|
|
|
|