[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.

[felix]

I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.

[felix]

I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.

[felix]

I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.

[felix]

I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.

[felix]

I feel even worse after reading some of the comments made above. I really wonder why so many are readily willing to accept lower expectations for their lives, their children’s lives and our country.

The problem isn’t that what is happening is inevitable. The problem is that we have been creating an economy, in the name of progress, that is unsustainable. The plain fact is we can not continue the growth in the number of public sector jobs and entitlements with meager or no growth in private sector economy.

Jobs that bring economic growth leave inhospitable states and countries. Higher taxes and higher labor costs drive away mobile business and jobs.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change direction. We just need to choose our leaders better.

We can not just vote for change, as if, it is always an improvement. Clearly, it isn’t.

[felix]

I feel even worse after reading some of the comments made above. I really wonder why so many are readily willing to accept lower expectations for their lives, their children’s lives and our country.

The problem isn’t that what is happening is inevitable. The problem is that we have been creating an economy, in the name of progress, that is unsustainable. The plain fact is we can not continue the growth in the number of public sector jobs and entitlements with meager or no growth in private sector economy.

Jobs that bring economic growth leave inhospitable states and countries. Higher taxes and higher labor costs drive away mobile business and jobs.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change direction. We just need to choose our leaders better.

We can not just vote for change, as if, it is always an improvement. Clearly, it isn’t.

[felix]

I feel even worse after reading some of the comments made above. I really wonder why so many are readily willing to accept lower expectations for their lives, their children’s lives and our country.

The problem isn’t that what is happening is inevitable. The problem is that we have been creating an economy, in the name of progress, that is unsustainable. The plain fact is we can not continue the growth in the number of public sector jobs and entitlements with meager or no growth in private sector economy.

Jobs that bring economic growth leave inhospitable states and countries. Higher taxes and higher labor costs drive away mobile business and jobs.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change direction. We just need to choose our leaders better.

We can not just vote for change, as if, it is always an improvement. Clearly, it isn’t.

[felix]

I feel even worse after reading some of the comments made above. I really wonder why so many are readily willing to accept lower expectations for their lives, their children’s lives and our country.

The problem isn’t that what is happening is inevitable. The problem is that we have been creating an economy, in the name of progress, that is unsustainable. The plain fact is we can not continue the growth in the number of public sector jobs and entitlements with meager or no growth in private sector economy.

Jobs that bring economic growth leave inhospitable states and countries. Higher taxes and higher labor costs drive away mobile business and jobs.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change direction. We just need to choose our leaders better.

We can not just vote for change, as if, it is always an improvement. Clearly, it isn’t.

[felix]

I feel even worse after reading some of the comments made above. I really wonder why so many are readily willing to accept lower expectations for their lives, their children’s lives and our country.

The problem isn’t that what is happening is inevitable. The problem is that we have been creating an economy, in the name of progress, that is unsustainable. The plain fact is we can not continue the growth in the number of public sector jobs and entitlements with meager or no growth in private sector economy.

Jobs that bring economic growth leave inhospitable states and countries. Higher taxes and higher labor costs drive away mobile business and jobs.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change direction. We just need to choose our leaders better.

We can not just vote for change, as if, it is always an improvement. Clearly, it isn’t.

[Author]

Posts