- #36
pelastration
- 165
- 0
I think Russ that there was international unwill because USA went for an economic war and a Wurmser inspired political war, who was already in 1998 screaming to topple Saddam for a new axis Israel-Jordan-Turkey. Most UN-members knew this. Plus there was a high risk problem (since Iraq is so multi-cultural, multi race/tribe, ...) which was a problem that asked a slow solution. You can see that in the letters from 52 UK "professional" diplomates and 60 professional USA diplomates. The Europeans had the same prudence. But USA wanted to attack. And as you can see now the reality is: a giant mess, no exit-plan, 3 or 4 times more Iraqis are killed than on 9/11, more then 700 US soldiers killed, many people hurt for life, and a giant deficit of you US-taxpayers. Is there a "real" result? A mess, US lost it's face ... and a number of new smiling US executives becoming multi-millionairs.russ_watters said:And I don't see how the UN (lead by the "coalition of the unwilling") did anything but stand in the way of the removal of Hussein. That's one of the primary criticisms of the US invasion.
Just give me one positive point for Iraq? But please not mention "freedom" and "democracy" because the facts show something else.
Last edited: