Right, Left, Phooey

[piqaboo]

We actually did support some assassination attempts by others w/in Iraq. Silly, because we'd have had a much better chance at success if we'd hired some folks who are really good at that, instead of trying to get it from an internal insurrection. So we skirted the letter of our own law and stomped on the spirit of it, all to no beneficial effect.

[Marye]

And, of course, the Bay of Pigs fiasco led to the Cuban missile crisis in 1963, in which Castro stockpiled WMD for implementation against the U.S.

Did you just describe Cuba defending themselves against a possible invasion from the U.S.?

[Shapley]

Marye,

Cuba's justification, like North Korea's, is that they had the right to stockpile the weapons for their own protection. The reality of the situation was that the Soviet Union was using Cuba as a staging platform for nuclear warheads which would have the ability to strike targets deep inside the United States. This was in the days before the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile targeting systems were perfected to the point that such targeting could be accomplished from bases in the Soviet Union itself. Having them just 90 miles off the Florida coast also reduces the United States response time significantly.

As I was quite a young fellow in 1963, I can't claim to know the situation at the time. Looking at the timeframe, it would appear that, being a relative newcomer at the time, having only recently (1959) overthrown the government of Cuba and established a dictatorship with strong ties to the Soviet Union, there was likely considerable concern that Cuba was the shovel with which Kruschev intended to bury us.

My reason for bringing it up is that, if such an attempt had been made in Iraq, it would have been seen by many as providing justification for abandoning the sanctions against Saddam, and justified to some allowing him to proceed with his acquisition of WMD's. Assuming that we, in the United States, did not agree with this, our efforts to remove the threat would then be met with nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare agents unleashed against our troops, with potential for significant losses among Iraq's own people (from our invasion as well as from the broadcast of such agents). We also knew from Saddam's actions during the first gulf war that he had no qualms about lobbing a few of his missiles in the direction of Israel, even though they were not a part of the invasion force.

The distinction between offense and defense are sometimes blurry, particularly when talking about mutually assured destruction, or Defensive posturing by known billigerents.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

All we had to do to Saddam was cut off OFF. The sanctions were working.

But then, there's no oil profit for the house of Saud in that...

[Shapley]

So, are you blaming OFF on President Bush as well?

[OperaTenor]

No, that would be Shos.

No, the UN is responsible for the failure of OFF. If I'm going to blame President PetroProfits for anything related to that, he should've lobbied the UN to drop the program instead of invasion. Would've saved a lot more lives, and still kept Saddam from developing WMD.

Of course, that would be if that was the real point of the whole exercise, which it wasn't.

Does anyone want to bet me that oil companies won't be posting record profits again next quarter, even if Rita destroys most or all of the production facilities along the Texas Gulf coast?

<small>[ 09-22-2005, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

OT,

Had President Bush lobbied for the elimination of the OFF program, he would have been blamed for being a heartless SOB who wants the people of Iraq to starve. Oh! Wait, he's blamed for that anyway, so I guess he can't win.

V/R
Shapley

[Trumpetmaster]

Shapley,

Sounds like "damned if you do damned if you dont"

I think it does not matter who is in office as there are always pros and cons to everything. Whatever any sitting president does will come under criticism from the opposing side.

Just seems to me like Bush is making some poor decisions that will take us a long time to get out of.

Maybe each one of us should put ourselves in the decision making seat, see what options are given, and try and come up with the best solution.

Can't please everyone.....

Regards,
TM

[OperaTenor]

HI Shap,

If Presdient PetroProfits had done homework on the subject and come to the reasoned conclusion Saddam was subverting OFF, and therefore getting around the sanctions, and that the sanctions were working, and clearly stated his case, he would have gotten overwhelming public support. Instead, he told everyone to just trust him and that everything would work out, at a time when it was easy to garner that kind of support(i.e., he took advantage of the sense of unity resulting from the 9/11 attacks - pretty low-down, IMO).

I don't blame him for starving the people of Iraq. I blame him for being an accessory to their murder.

All for oil.

<small>[ 09-23-2005, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>