At 01:51 PM 4/2/2003 -0800 d.brin wrote:
>Let me remind you that in 1991 this same team stopped our army 24
>hours from eliminating the problem altogether & freeing the same
>Iraqi people we are now supposed to be rescuing.
My understanding is that in the first Gulf War, US troops never even
approached within 100 miles of Baghdad. What exactly leads you to
believe that the US could have conquered the rest of Iraq in 24 hours?
>The difference
>between now and WWII is that such people would not be allowed to
>commit similar errors 12 years later, like sending a corps to do an
>army's job.
Gautam has already asked for your historical record of your position on
taking out Saddam Hussein in 1991, now allow me to ask you - did you oppose
Colin Powell's nomination as Secretary of State? Had you been in the
Senate at the time, would you have voted to confirm him?
>Or attacking in 180 degrees the wrong direction. Saddam could have
>waited. The people who are killing Americans, waging jihad against
>our civilization and corrupting our leaders live in Riyadh.
Dr Brin, you have previously indicated to this List that you consider a
major risk from this war the possibility of inflaming ordinary Mulsims and
Arabs against us. Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this previous
fear of yours with your suggestion that we should, "be attacking Riyadh?"
Do you believe that the risks of creating this inflammation in attacking
Iraq are greater than or less than the risks of creating this inflammation
by attacking the guardians of Mecca and Medina.
Additionally, you have previously indicated to this List that you consider
a major flaw in the Administration's war plan the fact that they do not
have enough allies in their Coalition in your mind. Out of curiosity, how
many allies do you believe that even the most silver-tongued diplomats in
US history would be able to assemble for an attack on Riyadh?
Moreover, if the US were to attack Riyadh, what consequences would this
have for the US policies of containment, sanctions, inspections, and
no-fly-zones regarding Iraq? Would the resulting instability have
negative consequences for the Untied States?
Lastly, where do you expect the US would be able to base its forces for
your proposed attack on Riyadh? Do you believe that Kuwait, Qatar,
Bahrain, the UAE, and Oman would support such an attack? If they did, do
you believe that these bases would form a viable platform for attack?
As such, would not a democratic federal republic of Iraq provide an ideal
base for using both diplomatic (and if it came to it, military) means for
changing the regime in Riyadh?
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
