Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:33:10 -0500, Boater wrote: Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of the mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in the case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did it mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all. Bush acted on the intel he got from our sources and those of other interested countries. His mistake was in waiting six months to act. I don't consider it a mistake. It was an obligation, in an attempt to prevent an invasion and war. All Saddam had to do initially was to honor the UN defined resolutions agreed to at the end of Gulf War l. He had a final, 11th hour chance to avoid war by responding to an ultimatum for him and his goofy sons to beat feet. Bottom line is (and this has been substantiated by some of Saddam's surviving staff members) that Saddam thought Bush was bluffing and didn't have the balls (or support) to invade. Obviously, he was proven wrong. It really gets my ass sometimes that some people ignore the six months or more of trying to work within the UN, the warnings, the ultimatums, the UN votes supporting the enforcement of previous resolutions, all resulting in Saddam giving the world the finger. Bush had two choices. Either do what he said he would do or say, "Oooops, sorry, just kidding, lets talk". Eisboch |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:30:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:33:10 -0500, Boater wrote: Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of the mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in the case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did it mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all. Bush acted on the intel he got from our sources and those of other interested countries. His mistake was in waiting six months to act. I don't consider it a mistake. It was an obligation, in an attempt to prevent an invasion and war. All Saddam had to do initially was to honor the UN defined resolutions agreed to at the end of Gulf War l. He had a final, 11th hour chance to avoid war by responding to an ultimatum for him and his goofy sons to beat feet. Bottom line is (and this has been substantiated by some of Saddam's surviving staff members) that Saddam thought Bush was bluffing and didn't have the balls (or support) to invade. Obviously, he was proven wrong. It really gets my ass sometimes that some people ignore the six months or more of trying to work within the UN, the warnings, the ultimatums, the UN votes supporting the enforcement of previous resolutions, all resulting in Saddam giving the world the finger. Bush had two choices. Either do what he said he would do or say, "Oooops, sorry, just kidding, lets talk". Eisboch Of course Bush had to let the UN do it's thing. It was a mistake in that it gave Saddam too much time to hide/dispose of that which needed hiding. Liberals tend to forget the six months warning and claim there was never a 'reason' in the first place. Maybe that's why they get called names so often. And, golfing was great! -- John H. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|