It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Oh, George...

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2003 @ 05:09 PM
Why don't you try listening to your father? I can't believe I am actually agreeing with George Sr.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome."

This is my first political topic here and I don't know a lot about politics so go easy when arguing with me

[Edited on 11-11-2003 by maynardsthirdeye]

posted on Nov, 11 2003 @ 05:20 PM
Way to go, Maynard, and a very decent first shot at it!

'41 was looking at a bit of a different scene, and I agree that he could not have continued into Baghdad at that time. '43, however, wasn't hobbled by the same restraints, and as a matter of fact, the job should have been done even before '43 took control. We just didn't have any leadership until '43 came along.
The mission in Iraq isn't going to be easy and anyone who thought it ws going to be a cakewalk was naive, to say the least. But it was a necessary thing, and in the end, I don't think it will be questioned anymore than our involvement in either of the world wars or in the cold war. Hopefully, the Iraqis will see a day when they are free of tyranny, prosperous, and able to stick their finger in our eye as most everyone enjoys doing.

posted on Nov, 11 2003 @ 05:49 PM
Slow and steady wins the race.

He said before we went in that it would be a long haul.

Guess everyone thought he was kidding.

And George Sr. is quite correct about the Gulf War. If he had gone in then he would have lost all the backing he had. It was a smart move and the only move he could have made. Albeit the unpopular one. That's what leadership is all about. You can't be Mr. Popular all the time with everyone.


log in