Some things never change. Even back then Sen. Swimmer was saying "let the sanctions take effect." Sanctions mean nothing to a tyrant like Hussein. Force is the only way he was removed from Kuwait. The situation isn't as serious - yet - but the man is a definite threat as long as he remains in power.
So if the situation isn't as serious, why are we planning an invasion? And, I'm definitely in the minority on this, but in hindsight, wasn't the first Gulf War a huge waste of time, money, and lives? The only net positive was defending the freedom of Kuwait - which wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. If George I hadn't given tacit permission, then this whole situation wouldn't exist.
Re: Re: Teddy Kennedy on "Meet The Press", Dec. 1990 Because Kuwait was the launching pad for the takeover of the entire Arabian peninsula if Saddam would've had his way. The Saudis were sh!tting pickles back then. Capitulation to madmen has NEVER worked. I think we've seen it time & again.
Re: Re: Re: Teddy Kennedy on "Meet The Press", Dec. 1990 Then why does this administration continue to employ Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld? In any case, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, UNLIKE this current "standoff," in which the US position in condemned by at least 135 nations, was condemned by the entire world. We rushed in to lead the military action for, IMHO, two reasons: (1) because of the possible advantage to be gained by establishing subtle control of oil in that region (2) because the military, if not used, begins to have its HUGE ************ING BUDGET questioned. We spend $400 billion a year on shiny new platforms each year...how does that get justified if the "old" platforms don't get used? An aside; we certainly have the number one military in the world for our money. What if we spent $400 billion on citizen education? Maybe we'd no longer be 36th in science and 17th in math around the world, and maybe we'd have an electorate who really took hold of the issues, who spent less time watching WWE and Robot Wars ad the Bachelorette and more time down at the Town Hall... Wait, the politicos can't have that...
Umm, we do (or at least very close to). http://www.policyalmanac.org/education/archive/doe_education_spending.shtml The first half of this makes sense. The second half reaks. I dare say there are many more intelligent people who watch the WWE than the idiots I see at town meetings. Any person who determines another persons intelligence based on what they watch or have hobbies in is a pretty low form of life IMO. Andy
No, no...you make my point. We have left the important stuff - active citizenship as a political person - to the idiots, precisely BECAUSE our potential best and brightest have been absconded by a life of consumerism; thus, we got what our combined particiaption level brought us...a former cokehead idiot as the leader of us all. All I'm saying is that I simply cannot imagine what would flow from a commitment by most of us to, well, BE citizens, as opposed to just holding the title. At a minimum, near-to-full citizen engagement would be revolutionary; there's an outside chance it could even be evolutionary.
Or a soccer fan. (Andy, just a pre-emptive note here...that's a gentle shot at all of us, not just you, not just Universal.)