Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess

Yes i agree. A little history here.

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War.
Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there
was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

That aside i believe we should have taken Iraq at that time as it would have avoided a lot of problems with that crazy back on his heels. Just my opinion.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda
training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed
i believe we should have gotten out of there.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to
come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum
backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.
When we found nothing we should have left imho.

So i would say yes, Saddam, radical Islamics and Bin Laden started it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were drawn into the Gulf War. Why Bush #1 didn't take Iraq at that time i don't know unless there was not enough anti Saddam sentiment within Irag to take over the government.

It's worth noting that we were "drawn" into the Gulf war to protect US oil interests in Saudi Arabia, and that Saudi Arabia paid for about 2/3's the cost of the war!

The reason we didn't take out Saddam was simple. The administration understood it would have been a cluster%$%$%$%$. Even #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney didn't support the assertion. Colin Powell coined his famous "Pottery Barn" anecdote about Iraq - you break it, you own it.

Bush 41 took a lot of heat for egging on the Shiite's in the south to stand up to Saddam, then doing nothing to help while Saddam's gunships went to work.

Then there was the first attack on the WTC by Islamic radicals and also attacks in England if i remember right.

Enter Bin Laden with the bombing of the USS Cole along with some other
terrorist actions in the world.

Then Bin Laden with the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

Bush #2 went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Al Qaeda training camps. When Bin Laden was pushed out and the camps destroyed i believe we should have gotten out of there.

All having nothing to do with Saddam.

Saddam had more then ample time to re-allow the UN inspectors to come in for inspection for WMD. He refused and was given an ultimatum backed by our allies and most of the Congress.
He didn't comply and we went in.

This isn't really how it happened though.

Saddam DID let the inspectors in, and the UN inspectors found nothing. Saddam was absolutely hampering the inspection process at first, and more pressure was put on the regime to cooperate.

Before the UN, Hans Blix testified that even though Saddam was not cooperating, it was not compromising the inspection on WMD.

Blix wanted time to finish the report, which was going to state that Saddam had no WMD (the same conclusion that Duelfer came to a few years later) and this obviously conflicted with Bush's war plans which were already in motion.

-spence

[justplugit]

Spence, you must not have read the quote of ScottW that i agreed with:

Scottw Quote:
"I would suggest that Saddam, Al Qaeda and radical Islam started this mess. "

I never said Saddam had anything to do with the first WTC bombing, the Cole, or the 2nd WTC bombing.
My post was a quick chronological list from my memory of how Saddam,
Al Qaeda and radical Islam started and got us into this mess.

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection
by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.

So he chose to be invaded instead, being the crazy loon he was, and he did
start the Gulf War.

You must have a great memory, remembering Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn"
antidote about Iraq.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

All Saddam had to do, if he didn't have any WMD, was allow another inspection by the UN. He wouldn't, which added more doubt as to him having them or not.

Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence

uh oh...Spence's Sunday morning tinfoil hat conspiracy talk...

he was actually the chief instigator of an awful lot of bad that was going on in his own country as well as many others....and, you have absolutely no idea what issues we'd be having today had Saddam not invaded Kuwait...are you holding seances again?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Again, this isn't really true. Reread your history...

And as for Saddam "starting this". He was but a player in a very large production. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait we'd still be having the exact same issues today.

-spence

No need for me to read my history and read others opinions,
i lived through it and followed it very closely at the time.