Quote:
Originally posted by Cairo
Anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that the Gulf War has not ended yet. And well frankly, it's about time we cared.
|
The Iraqi situation is what happens when politicians don't plan, in advance, for the upcoming surrender. Learn about what Yalta, et al were all about - why they were so important to ending that war. Why such planning was so important in keeping the mistakes of WWI from being repeated.
Had those in power in 1990 decided to remove Saddam as a condition of surrender, we would not have been in this position. Clearly Saddam was a candidate for crime against humanity in The Hague. However senior George Sr admininstration political types made Saddam's surrender conditions so pathetic that things like the no-fly-zone were appended to the surrender AFTER the surrender agreement was signed. Had those American political types done their job in 1991, none of this morass would exist.
Before you go about solving problems by dropping nuclear bombs, first learn how we got here in the first place. George Sr administration screwed up. George Sr himself suspected something wrong in a news conference where he said he just did not feel we had accomplished everything and was not comfortable celebrating so early. George Sr was correct. His adminstration let Saddam off the hook and even made it almost impossible for the UN inspectors to find all those weapons of mass destruction.
Bin Laden's attacks on the world are directly traceable to the fact that we said we would leave the Gulf after war was over. We lied. One need not agree with bin Laden's actions to still understand reasons for his actions. We lied. We did not leave the Gulf. We remain in a continuing skirmish with Saddam because we agreed to these, what are now unacceptable, surrender conditions.
Based upon the conditions we agreed to, an attack on Saddam requires new UN approval. There is no way around that fact - which even right wing extremists in the administration conceded to. Yes Cairo. An attack on Saddam is not justified by any 1990 UN resolutions. Even senior officials of the George Jr administration concede that point.
Saddam conformed to the original surrender conditions. To attack Saddam, a smoking gun is first required. That is exactly what the recent UN resolution demands. That necessary smoking gun is why Germany, Mexico, Syria, China, and France all agreed to the new resolution. A smoking gun must be produced before any attack on Iraq can be initiated. That is fact. That was fundamental to the UN resolution. That is what those who honor rules of law appreciate. That is what you outrightly ignore in your opinions. You ignore that a smoking gun must be presented before any attack can even be considered. Welcome, again, to reality.