the position would have been different in the first gulf war, yes. Saddam was clearly the aggressor.
On 11/17/07, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was no proof of WMD AFTER the fact. Before we went in he puffed out > his chest and made it appear that he had them, and then when the pressure > was put on him, he started saying he had no WMD's. So what were we supposed > to do/believe? It is these types of scenarios where I cannot understand the > liberal approach of wait and see. There are too many things at stake to just > wait and see. Situations like this require action be taken. > Now of course we all know he could have avoided this if he simply let the > inspectors run around his country looking at whatever they wanted with no > resistance. He chose not to and now this. I honestly wish he had cooperated > 100% so this whole thing could have been avoided (maybe). But that is the > problem with men in the Middle East, especially men like Saddam. They have > too much pride and they don't like anyone stepping on that pride. Pride and > honor are two things over there that are respected more than anything. > That's why in some of these countries, if a daughter has premarital sex, she > is put to death. She dishonored that family and wounded the father's pride. > Likewise for adultery. Death is the status quo for the woman. And the reason > I know this is because I interacted with many Iraqi men and women, and they > all told me the same thing. > And let's not forget how many times he shot at our jets that were patrolling > the no-fly zones. Technically, that is an act of war. Why that pretext for > war was never taken I don't know. I guess selling the world on WMD's sounded > better. Who knows? Only GW knows for sure. > All I know is this. I keep saying that we should have done this 17 years > ago. We had more boots on the ground, and more cooperative world support. > Ask a lot of soldiers who were in the first gulf war and they will tell you > the same thing. I honestly believe that it would have been very different > back then. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:29 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: new book confirms Saddam wanted a nuke > > But Hussein was not a threat to them either. As you pointed out, > that's why the Gulf War happened and Hussein was locked down - further > there was no evidence of WMD to make him a threat. It was, obviously, > an extremely stupid call for what reasons it was made. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get the answers you are looking for on the ColdFusion Labs Forum direct from active programmers and developers. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/categories.cfm?forumid-72&catid=648 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:246607 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
