Quote:
Originally posted by slang
As you may know, I am in favor of this war for many reasons I have previously posted. ... There was a military action about ten years ago that I was very much in favor of.
|
I was also a minority that advocated immediate war on Iraq when Kuwait was invaded. For that matter, I was proclaiming a war that would involve every major world power back in June 1990. Most, including a best friend, thought I was loony (then some asked where Iraq was).
Most Americans back then would not support a war to liberate Kuwait. Today too many forget their actual opinions. Those not in open support of war included most of The Cellar, Defense Secretary Cheney, majority of Congress, most of George Sr's advisors, and most of my friends. Funny how today a strong majority say they supported that war. Funny how so many forget that it took Margaret Thatcher to put the backbone into George Sr (and Scowcroft to stiffen it in the middle of August).
In fact some friends still are pissed that I called then after 11 PM on 1 Aug 1990 (woke them up) to tell them 'my' war had started.
So what is different here? My someone so hard nosed is so opposed to this war? No smoking gun, still, AND that America should only fight wars that those most threatened first could not solve.
We are not the world's policeman. First those nations that are threatened must see and confront the problem. The same person who kept saying on The Cellar that we will fully end up in a war in the Baklans (who apparently was the only one advocating eventual military action) - with total silence from virtually the entire Cellar - uses same reasoning to say this war is wrong.
I find it curious that among the few who advocated the immediate liberation of Kuwait was Brent Scowcroft - George Sr's National Security Advisor. He too agrees with me about this inevitiable war. Wrong time and currently not justified.
Another hard nosed, take no nonsense, man is Scott Ridder - of the first Iraq WMD team. Do you remember his take no bullshit, confront them to expose their stalling attitude? Ridder makes a point quite bluntly. This is not a war to remove mass destruction weapons. We are going to war only to take out Saddam. Of course. Saddam is a tribute to Cheney and company who drank champaigne when they should have defined conditions for Saddam's surrender. Scott Ridder and I also share a common belief - that this war is about Saddam and not about WMD.
Slang, you will be surprised how militant my support for war has been. This war is that different - war for the wrong reasons. So hard nosed about no international nonsense that some call me an extremist conservative. War must have solid, fundamental reasons. Those reasons don't even come close yet to existing in Iraq - and never will until Saddam's neighbor are threatened. They, not America, are Saddam's targets. Saddam, not WMD, are George Jr's target.