2007-08-30 10:27:25 · 15 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bad. I want to spend $0.05 on a gallon of gas like they do. Luck bastards.
2007-08-30 10:30:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Apparently, cheney thought it was a good idea not to go any further:
At the time of the (CNN) interview 13 years ago, Cheney was the ex-defense secretary, camped out at the American Enterprise Institute and contemplating a run for president. Asked why he didn't think U.S. forces should have gone on to Baghdad during the first Persian Gulf War, he asked rhetorically, "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?" He added, "It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."
2007-08-30 17:39:01 · answer #2 · answered by Monk 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, if you listen to Dick Chaney (in a 1994 C-SPAN interview), it was a good decision because if Bush I had gone all the way to Baghdad, it would have resulted in the US Miltiary becoming involved in a "quagmire" with no sense of the what the true mission would become.
Imagine that!
2007-08-30 17:36:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was a good decision... the Persian Gulf War had one major objective: to free Kuwait and free the area of Kuwait that was disputed (over oil leases and ownership... Saddam Hussein took over these oil fields by force). The objective was not regime change or even to detect nuclear and/or biological weapons programs.
Bush I reached his objective and decided (wisely) to not alter the objective.
2007-08-30 17:35:44 · answer #4 · answered by cattledog 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It was an excellent decision. Look what happened when Bush 2 did it.
Dad knew that Saddam was not a real nice person. But he also knew it took someone like him to keep that country together.
So what does Bush 2 do? He kills him. Now nobody is around that can hold that country together. Endless civil war thanks to Junior.
2007-08-30 17:34:19 · answer #5 · answered by killintimer 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was the better of 2 bad choices he had for that time and that situation.
To head you off at the pass: one cannot, with any intellectual honesty, claim that what might have been the better decision then was equally the better situation a dozen years later, in completely different circumstances.
That would be a significant logical error!
2007-08-30 18:01:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The U.S. didn't go into Baghdad in Gulf War I because it didn't appear necessary to the mission, which was to kick Iraq's occupying forces out of Kuwait.
2007-08-30 17:32:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
He did not have a choice.
He had to promise the UN Council & the Democrats that he would Not invade Iraq.
2007-08-30 17:32:33 · answer #8 · answered by wolf 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Gee, by not staying in 1991, we missed out on suicide bombers, civil war, and widespread looting and destruction. We also passed on severals deaths a day of our soldiers, and spending three billion ($3,000,000,000.00) per week in the country.
What do you think?
2007-08-30 17:34:51 · answer #9 · answered by John T 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Good and look who agrees
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=qnV4tMvI0ME
The same guy who later lied America in to this mess
2007-08-30 17:48:13 · answer #10 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋