Weapons Inspectors

[skywalker]

I may be wrong, but I think George Bush Sr. decided not to "get him".

Mark

[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.

[Ronn_Bman]

If they comply that will be great!

The problem is, over the past decade Iraq has used submitting to UN sanctions as a stalling tactic. Nothing new here.

Don't get me wrong, if they allow unfettered access and compliance to the Security Council Resolutions, there is no reason for military action. In this scenario, the world will be a better place, but if Saddam allows inspectors in AGAIN only to say, "no you can't go here, you can't go there, maybe tomorrow, etc.", the "war drum" will continue to beat.

My hope is that Saddam realizes the world doesn't want/will not accept him having access to weapons of mass destruction, and that without the possibility of "crying" US unilateralism as a defense ,he can't continue with his current plans.

My guess is that within a month of allowing access inspectors will say they are being denied access.

I believe military action is justified against Saddam if he does not comply, but I would love nothing better than for this to be resolved peacefully.

*fingers crossed* [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-17-2002, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[skywalker]

Found this here: http://www.thecrackedpot.net/3-1/News_DesertStorm.html
(A news-zine for The Potter School)

"The entire war was fought in the Persian Gulf and the main purpose, to liberate Kuwait, was accomplished by April 6, 1991. One of the United State’s secondary goals, however, to capture Saddam Hussein, was not accomplished. President Bush ordered the search stopped after Kuwait was liberated, because the main objective was to liberate Kuwait, not to capture Hussein."

There are probably better sources, but this was the first I found.

Mark

[Edit] Fixing the link.

[ 09-16-2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[skywalker]

Like the story on CNN says...Iraq claims: Inspections without conditions.

If not, that means force will be warranted, we'll see what happens otherwise.

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

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 speech 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.

[ 09-16-2002, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Animal]

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: Like the story on CNN says...Iraq claims: Inspections without conditions. If not, that means force will be warranted, we'll see what happens otherwise. Mark

Exactly, I just hope this time he realizes the international military implications are in motion against him if he bluffs.

[ 09-16-2002, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Animal: 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.

Bunker busters are designed to destroy "hardened" targets whatever they may be. They were used in the Gulf War to soften up the Iraqi defenses.

Bush, the senior, probably would have used them to take out Saddam, if it were possible, but that was not the primary objective.

On the "highway of death" following the retreating Iraqi troops, it was UN Middle Eastern allies who said, "enough is enough". We appreciated their efforts and knew it would have caused them/us immense complications to continually murder retreating soldiers. How much is too much?

If the US had continued against Iraq, against the will of the other UN members, this would have been called a unilateral action. Bush worked incredibly hard to build an internatinal coalition for the war, and it would have been counter productive to violate their will in the days immediately following the conflict. After all, without our Middle Eastern allies the Gulf War would have been nothing more than an INTRUSION/INVASION by the West into the sovereign lands of the "cradle of humanity".

It would have been great if they'd removed Saddam, but if IT had continued beyond the 100 hours, they would have been vilified then and today. Anyone who disputes this is being untruthful.

If the Gulf War wasn't enough, shouldn't some other UN member have spoken up then and said, "this isn't enough"? It's weird when the US acquiesces to the will of the internation community and is still blamed for those shortcomings.

The US may have been the most powerful force in the Gulf War, but if it had acted beyond the UN mandates wouldn't that have been a problem, then and now?

[ 09-16-2002, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: I may be wrong, but I think George Bush Sr. decided not to "get him". Mark

Why do you think Bush decided not to get him?

Violating the procedure set forth by the UN for the conflict?

Possible international repercussions?

Not a moral action?

Leaving him in place for a future Republican(I'm kidding with this one Mark, ok [img]smile.gif[/img] )?

Just curious because I, personally, do believe Bush, Sr., could have gotten him with an all out/UN excluded effort, but I don't believe he could have done it without the US receiving and being punished for the "cowboy" image Junior now has(unjustly because, while he's said alot, he hasn't yet acted)...and worse.

[ 09-16-2002, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]