In a message dated 10/8/01 2:02:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< However, Hussein should have been removed, no matter
the consequences - Evil can�t be forgiven. Slobodan
should have been removed after the Bosnia war; it
would have prevented the Kosovo war. OTOH, what has
happened in Kosovo? I guess it�s now a no-man�s land,
and the Kosovo majority may be happily slaughtering
what remained of the Serbian minority. >>
IIRC, At the time, the American government said that the reason they didn't
was that while the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of
force didn't call for Hussain's removal. I was pretty sure this was a crock
at the time, and IMHO, still do. ("Oops, so sorry, was that your leader?"
Nobody would have shed many tears for the man.) Considering the way he moved
around and kept himself hidden I just think we were unable to locate him.
One way or another, a US or NATO presence in the form of troops would have
been necessary afterwards to ensure the stablility of the new Iraqi
government. IIRC, the majority of Americans were opposed to that type of
continued US military presence -- we tend towards a more isolationist policy
in peacetime.
Unless I'm mistaken, we have been pretty good about not actually overthrowing
governments through military action the last couple of decades. Haiti in the
early-90's is the last one I can recall. Can anybody back this up with
statistics?
Anyway, my point was that it's the UN's job to take ruling leaders out of
power, not really ours.
Jon
