Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Squiggy said:Apparently you all missed the point so I guess I have to accept responsibility for poorly communicating it. I recognized, prior to the first attack on Iraq, that it was rather hypocritical to attack them in defense of Kuwait because kuwait was no better than Iraq when it came to human rights. I'm asking the same question about the current situation. I'm not arguing about the war anymore. I'm asking why none ever seem to realize that some leader is bad unless W points at them and says "evil doer"......If he started talking up the evidence tieing SA to 911, I think you would all fall in line with attack slogans...despite the arguments you're putting forth now. Put me on ignore if you like oli. I don't give a fuck. I've got one of those buttons too.
Since everybody wants to flame, instead of give coherant answers, I'll attempt to answer.
1. Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia?
Not as complex as most would like to think, it's actually a 2-fold answer. Mecca and Medina. If you think, for one second, that attacking the country that was created to protect those 2 monuments to the religion of Islam is going to be easy and/or swift, you're not thinking things through. It's too tough a fight for us in this time period, so we chose to bypass SA until we're ready.
2. Why don't we attack Kuwait?
Because it would inflame most of the civilised world. I'm not saying we should, or shouldn't, get rid of Kuwait, but, once again, these things need to be done on a schedule...our schedule. Just like Rome wasn't built in a day, the current crisis won't be ended in a day. Right and wrong have nothing to do with this. It's all timing.
3. Why did we attack Iraq if sanctions were working?
You fight your battles starting with the lowest level, and then moving up. That way, your troops get the battle conditioning they need to survive higher up that chain. Sound military strategy, if not morally agreeable.
