Replies

Any reticence on the part of Kurds or Shiites to rise up against Saddam a second time may be laid at the feet of Bush I and that diplmatic blunderer, Colin Powell, who engineered their destruction under Saddam after the first Gulf War,

Remember, we were there under the aegis of the UN in 1991, so we stopped when the Security council decided we'd gone far enough.

That's why it is so important that we are there today without the shackles of that debating society! The Iraqi people are naturally skeptical, and won't rally until they can truly believe that we are there to STAY until Sadaam and his ruling regime are completely GONE!

The news out of Basra and Najaf gives me hope that word is beginning to spread!

"..we stopped when the Security council decided we'd gone far enough."

'nuff said. That explains a lot of our problems doesn't it? And why did we have to follow the dictates of these self-serving obstructionists anymore in 1991, than we have in 2003?

Had we exercized some "civil disobedience" we wouldn't have this problem right now. Neither the U.S., nor any other power, is obligated to follow the demands of any third party when its own enlightened self interests are involved, especially when they mesh with common sense. There were any number of advisors George I had who felt we should have pushed on. U.N. loving Powell, who would have gotten us into a second stall on this if it wasn't for more aggressive voices in Bush's inner circle, advised we let a wounded tiger live, rather than kill it when the opportunity was greatest.

See the recent posting about Powell urging the French to assist with the rebuilding of Iraq. This man is a walking catastrophe. He underestimated the adversity of the French and Germans and Russians to us in the Security Council, he was laughed at in a recent visit to South East Asia to garner support for the U.S., he is demonstrably incapable of accurately interpreting the intentions, sentiments, or thought processes of foreign diplomats or foreign sentiment in general.