> During the Persian Gulf War (Desert Storm / Desert Shield) our allies
> combined (not including hardware and specialized services) provided
But Japan and the Saudis et. al. paid for those troops. This time
we're footing the entire bill.
> France, Germany and Russia all had a vested interest in keeping Saddam
This is speculation and not very keen - keep in mind 1441 was agreed
to by all. One could easily convince someone their investments won't
be lost by guarenteeing contracts, etc. France, Germany, Russia and
every other country will do whatever is in their best interest period.
The trick is to make your agenda in their best interest - that's
called diplomacy.
> Funny, I distinctly recall the Brits, the Australians and something
> like 50 other countries that supported and assisted with the invasion,
With the exception of the Brits, they were paid to! They were just
mercenaries. That's like saying Halliburton supported the war - of
course they did, they were paid. My point is this "support" couldn've
been secured for free or, better yet, they would've paid us such as
they did the last time we invaded that dust hole.
> Lastly, where is it said that we have failed in our mission?
If our mission was "regime change" then why are we still there? If
it's a democratic Iraqi gov't, they have it so why are still there?
Because our Pentagon and Whitehouse listened to Chalabi. You paid
Chalabi $350,000/month for 2 years. Did you get your money's worth?
Chris Mattews: "If you had to explain to kids, say, 30 years from now
why we went to war with Iraq, the real reasons, with were they?"
ZINNI: "I believe the real reason was a misguided belief, a strategic
belief that we were going to change the Middle East overnight and do
it on the cheap, without doing the hard work of the peace process, and
help encourage reform in a way that could be acceptable to this
culture. "
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
