GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13423 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 753 times:
Wasn't the UN who stopped the last time, it was Bush on Powell's advice.
The need to stop the slaughter apparently.
Translation:we've so far got away with few casualties, he's out of Kuwait, let's not push our luck and screw up the coalition who made the build-up possible in the first place.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 743 times:
The UN refused to mandate the removal of Saddam - only the liberation of Kuwait. Had the U.S. kept going, Europe and the rest of the world would have turned on the U.S. as international criminals.
Imagine if the UN had been around during WWII. The allies would have had to stop on the German border, Hitler would have stayed in power, sanctions on Germany, no EU possible, and France and other neigboring countries in a state of seige / arms race.
Twaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 726 times:
Memo From President Bush
You can thank the US for that.
But don't thank us, we didn't ask anything from you, no territorial concessions, no annual tribute, no conversion to any religion, no quartering of soldiers, no humiliation. All we asked of you was to kind of remodel your government after ours, one where the people chose the leaders, freedom and democracy are defended, and world trade and cooperation are favorable.
Do that and maybe send us a nice card the first week in July. Thats all we ask, thanks for listening. Good Luck. W.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 721 times:
Twaneedsnohelp, I trust you are not including Britain in that little letter.
Cfalf, Whilst it is true that that the arab nations may have been less than keen on the allies continuing and removing Saddam, this was not because of any anti-US bias, but because they feared for the stability of the region if Saddam were removed. The thinking was that as objectionable as Saddam was, Iraq was at least a counterweight to Iran in the region.
The US followed that line of thinking, fearing Balkanisation of Iraq as well as a fundamental shift in the balance of power in the middle-east. The UN position was neither here nor there in that situation; it was realpolitik that dictated the decision.
It is obvious that since then most in the West regret that Saddam was not overthrown when the opportunity arose, particularly since both the US and the UK have to keep their air forces stationed out there. The sanction-busting that certain countries have engaged in has simply made the US/UK position difficult to hold.
All the evidence points to the fact that the British initially disagreed with the US decision not to press on to Baghdad, although the British SIS were strongly lobbying the government in favour of Powell's proposals.
Your simplistic blame of the UN is some way wide of the mark.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Hoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 718 times:
The Iran-Iraq war only ended in 1988 although the related risk to the stability of the international oil market remained a very real threat. This was in a pre-Khatami time when Iran was enemy #1 and had a knack for "exporting" its Islamic (Shiite) revolution into Iraq, Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Iraq was seen as a bulwark against the Ayatollahs.