Goombah,

Finally someone answers the question that I asked! If I agree with your answer or not is irrelivent, as I was looking to see if someone could at least answer the question directly and in an intelligent way. You did that wihtout avoiding the original question and attacking or bringing up another issue. Thank you!

Now as far as you saying that Bush 41 did not finish the job, well not his fault. By getting the UN to sanction and back the invasion, his hands were tied because the UN would not allow the US to execute Saddam Hussein. That was part of the agreement when the UN council agreed to back the invasion. Part of the UN charter states something to the effect that if the UN approves an invasion, etc. of another country, it will not allow the execution or assasination of the leader of that country. So that is why BUSH41 could not finish the job
and take out Saddam. If you haven;t done so already, read Norman Shwartzkoff's book which talks exactly about this. As a general Noraman was pissed off that his troops could not finish the job, but explains that BUSH41 was not allowed to do so because he had the backing and approval of the UN. Now my personal feeling is that BUSH43 really did not care about getting the UN to approve our going into Iraq, because he saw and learned what happened the first time his father got UN approval, so BUSH43 figured after 12 years and seventeen resolutions against Saddam, if the UN would not approve our going into Iraq, so be it because without UN approval we could now finish the job, not be held accountable by the UN and we would be able to remove Saddam from power and if he wasn't caught, we would be able to kill him if neccesary. This is my personal feeling. But I;ll point another thing out to you; if you ever have a chance to study a map of that whole middle eastern region, look very closely and study it with dilligence. If you do you will clearly see that Iraq is a major strategic area for the middle east, and when Iraq finally has it's democracy, it will speak volumes to that whole region of the world. There is no doubt that part of the reason we went into Iraq was for strategic reasons. When thier government is put into power, we will have a strong relationship with a country that is strategically located smack in the middle of the Arab world. Not a question here if you agree with our going into
Iraq or not, but just trying to point out an observation as to one of the reasons for the importance of that part of the middle east becoming a democracy.

As for the statemnet that you made regarding Bush43 pissing off other nations because he told them that if they would not be a part of the war itself, then they could not be a part of the rebuilding effort, I personally admire him for doing that! Why should we send our troops into Iraq and have our soldiers killed while other nations stand idley waiting for the opportunity to go in, rebuild and make money. All without thier having to scarifice one life or without thier having to send one soldier to assist in the effort. They should definatley NOT reap the financial harvest by getting rebuilding contracts without plowing the fields first. I think that Bush made the right decision in telling those countrys what he did, and if it pissed thm off, well too bad. But again, that is my personal opinion and I know that you and some others may feel differently.

Again, I respect that you answered my original question and appreciate your responding in a respectful and informative manner.


Don Cardi