posted on February 17, 2001 08:44:17 PM new
I am not saying anything positive or negative. Waiting for the usual tit for tat response I just wonder if Saddam has any real grasp of what he is dealing with?
If he really wanted to Bush could order a strike from one carrier that would wipe every population center over a couple thousand off the map and leave the whole country basically depopulated. I don't know if the military would obey the order , but they have the ability. If I were Sadam I would seriously worry that he might have the will. What would the other countries say to the complete removal of a country from the face of the earth? The Romans and Greeks used to depopulate a country but nobody has done it in modern times.
posted on February 17, 2001 09:02:24 PM new
The United States is not going to remove Iraq from the face of the earth. There is no cause for it. If I were Saddam I wouldn't worry about anything like that at all. Besides, a coalition like the one that was formed 10 years ago would be impossible to form again today. Saddam has recently rebuilt himself into a real hero in the Middle East, with the exception of Kuwait and Israel. Even Iran would probably side (vocally) with Iraq in a U.S. war against Iraq.
Personally I think these airstrikes where meant as a "hello" to Saddam from Bush. This past month Saddam had been "testing" Bush by firing more antiaircraft missile than usual at U.S. and British planes. I read that in January Iraq fired 13 such missiles, whereas in the past year they fired an average of one a month.
Evidently the goal of the U.S. is not to depose Saddam, as it is difficult to believe that the U.S. could not have already at least fomented some kind of an uprising there. The goal of the U.S. (my guess) is just to keep Saddam from becoming a more major, Nasser-like figure in the Middle East. If he doesn't cross any major red lines (like reinvade Kuwait) the U.S. will let him die in his sleep.
posted on February 17, 2001 10:46:46 PM new
Saddam probably thinks he has nothing to worry about from the US based on Bush Sr. saying way back during the Gulf War to citizens of Iraq:
Something along the lines of "you do whatever you need or can do to get rid of Saddam and we'll back ya to the hilt..." (Sorta like "read my lips".
Well some of them actually believed Daddy Bush, tried their best and Daddy Bush left then dangling in the wind, saying "oh, sorry - you guys didn't take me seriously did you"?
posted on February 17, 2001 10:50:40 PM new
Pushed too far where? Look at the map:
Over half of the sovereign territory of Iraq, the nation of Iraq, is off limits to Iraqi because of our arrogance in interfering in what should be internal matters of Iraq.
This has nothing to do with weaponry, or the capability to build them, or any limitation on that capability for purposes of world peace.
These supposed 'no-fly' zones were imposed, not agreed or signed to, by the UN coalition (i.e.-the United States) to keep Iraq from quelling an internal uprising in the north of their country by Kurdish rebels against other Kurdish factions, and to purportedly protect Shiite moslems in the southern portion of their country. But these supposed 'no-fly' zones are freely flown in by US and British warplanes.
In a bit of irony our interests saw fit to extend northward the southern no fly zone because Iraq had attempted to intervene between Kurdish factions in the NORTHERN
portion of their country. Makes sense, eh?
I don't see that it's any of our, or of the UN's business to be imposing limitations on a country within it's own borders.
Again, it's not connected to the restrictions agreed to by Iraq on the development of destructive weaponry, and no matter how much fun it is, or how much rah-rah it develops back here, we ought to butt out.
posted on February 18, 2001 10:36:48 AM newKrs My comment as to their going too far. I was referring to the reports that they have dramatically stepped up their attempts to shoot down our aircraft. That, to me, seemed to be Sadaam's way of testing how far he would be able to go with the new administration.
It's not like they were surprised to see our aircraft there? So, why the sudden escalation in trying to shoot us down? Should we have waited for him to actually kill one of our pilots? I'm assuming too that in a situation like this that there is likely a lot that we're not being told.
I can see your point of view but Saddam hasn't given me any reason to trust him or to believe our countries stand against him is unjustified. IOW, in a case where there are likely to be a lot of unknowns (to the general public) I'd trust our government over his anytime.
posted on February 19, 2001 10:18:07 PM new
On Fox news it was mentioned that the UK parliament think that the airstrike was "unlawful." And France is not happy either.
Apparently Bush is not doing too well with a lot of folks.
He started off with the federal funding of abortions and now this. In my opinion he is not a uniter....F+
I wonder what kind of feedback Bush would get if his presidency was an eBay seller/buyer?
Look everyone, I voted for Gore. I believe we need to be fair with Bush. I don't like bashing Bush but there somethings that as a citizen of the USA and the world I do have opinions on which I try to base on what I read, see and hear, keeping in mind that the information may be inaccurate, misleading or just mean-spirited gossip. And I like dialoging with diverse environment.
