Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: How many attacks occurred on US soil

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Prior to the US going in to Iraq to save our friends the Kuwaitis there was never an Al Queda/Bin Laden attack on US soil (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So we went in, we rescued Kuwait and instead of finishing the job and coming home we decide it would be a good idea to keep our troops there for a decade or so.

    Then the hypocritical religous zealots are mad and they decide the US is polluting their land so they must now launch terrorist attacks against the US which puts us in the situation we're in today. So without yelling and screaming about right/wrong with the current situation, why is it we never hear about what the root of this problem really was? If we had gone in, saved Kuwait and left, none of this would have occurred.

    The US can't allow a guy like Bin Laden to push us around but from all the reports I've heard, he did say he would start a war with the US if we didn't get out of the "holy land". So now it appears [b]Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr [/b] (no blind faith here, 3 consecutive presidents botched this whole ordeal and put us where we are today) didn't take him seriously enough and let him roam free.

    IMHO, if we get in, get the job done, get out....we're all good but it was the decision to make our stay indefinite (kind of like Korea that is now over 50 years)
    that put us where we are today.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AirForceJetFan[/i]@Nov 11 2003, 10:43 AM
    [b] Prior to the US going in to Iraq to save our friends the Kuwaitis there was never an Al Queda/Bin Laden attack on US soil (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So we went in, we rescued Kuwait and instead of finishing the job and coming home we decide it would be a good idea to keep our troops there for a decade or so.

    Then the hypocritical religous zealots are mad and they decide the US is polluting their land so they must now launch terrorist attacks against the US which puts us in the situation we're in today. So without yelling and screaming about right/wrong with the current situation, why is it we never hear about what the root of this problem really was? If we had gone in, saved Kuwait and left, none of this would have occurred.

    The US can't allow a guy like Bin Laden to push us around but from all the reports I've heard, he did say he would start a war with the US if we didn't get out of the "holy land". So now it appears [b]Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr [/b] (no blind faith here, 3 consecutive presidents botched this whole ordeal and put us where we are today) didn't take him seriously enough and let him roam free.

    IMHO, if we get in, get the job done, get out....we're all good but it was the decision to make our stay indefinite (kind of like Korea that is now over 50 years)
    that put us where we are today. [/b][/quote]
    I agree with you though I don't think you can blame GWB for allowing bin laden to roam free.

    My question to you is; what would the liberals and those who claimed to be our "allies" have done were we to finish the job back in 1991? What would the outcry have been? How many would've protested and said, "you've gone to far?"

    I agree, we should've at least dropped a bomb on his imperial palace as Regan did with Quaddafi in the late 80's to shut the sonifa***** up!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Nov 11 2003, 11:26 AM
    [b] I agree, we should've at least dropped a bomb on his imperial palace as :blink: Regan :blink: did with Quaddafi in the late 80's to shut the sonifa***** up! [/b][/quote]
    Please for the love of God learn how to spell the name of you beloved hero!

    It's Reagan!!

    This is the second time in a week I've had to correct you.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    The reason we stayed in the "Holy Land" was because Saudi Arabia has no army and no way of defending itself from Saddam's regional agression. By not removing Saddam in 1991, we needed the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia to deter ANY regional aggression Saddam may have been planning, in addtion to the fact that the troops helped ensure Israel's security from a Pan-Arab invasion (laugh all you want, but the Arabs have ganged up on Israel many time before, even when they occupied what is now called the West Bank and Gaza). Additionally, ostensibly the presence of American troops in the region would have motivated Saddam to comply with UN inspectors directly after the Gulf War. They also needed to patrol the no-fly zones daily to protect the Kurds. It was part of the whole strategy of "containment" rather than "regime change" adopted back then.

    I DO blame George H.W. Bush for stopping before the job was finished in 1991. [b]Air Force -[/b] you are hitting on the very core of the issue and the exact reason why George W. Bush is doing the right thing, IMO. The only reason the Gulf War ended prematurely was because the UN and "international opinion" favored it. H.W. Bush played along with the international consensus at the time, in the name of "legality" "compromise" and "regional stability." The UN also didn't have any interest in conducting the rebuilding efforts needed in a post-Saddam Iraq, just as they are not willing to do so now. Contrary to popular, current leftist opinion, the UN is horrible at re-building nations. It cannot be forgotten that many countries had and continued to have (during the 80's -90's) lucrative contracts with Saddam that they would have likely lost had he been removed.

    So we held back, let him stay and tried "containment." This gave OBL his ostensible reasons for 9-11. Who knows what OBL would have done had we not been stationed there - all we have is what he says and who knows how credible that is. If H.W. Bush HAD gotten Saddam in 1991, there would most certainly have been an American/Western presence in Iraq during reconstruction, and OBL may very well have gotten annoyed at that and used it as a pre-text for 9-11. Who knows?

    AQ and similar terrorists had not successfully attacked Americans on US soil prior to the first Gulf War, but certainly have killed Americans abroad for a long, long time. I am sure you remember the marine barracks attack in Lebanon that killed almost 300 marines during the 80's. The problem prior to 9-11 is precisely that since no terrorist attack was on domestic soil, the USA didn't take the threat of one seriously enough. Terrorists never faced a sustained and focused campagin against them. We didn't even learn the lesson in 1993 after an Iraqi AQ member attacked the WTC!!!! The USA responded with lawyers, not the army. Just because that particular attack was not successful does not mean there wasn't a real, immediate threat. (People say that we should invade Saudi Arabia since most of the 9-11 guys were Sauds, but have little to say about the fact that an Iraqi national was responsible for the first WTC attack)

    W. Bush learned from his father that "international opinion" is very often wrong, or, at the least, very often contrary to America's interests. He also learned from 9-11 that terrorism is a very real and immediate threat and that the word "immiment" doesn't mean what it used to in this day and age. He is now taking care of the problem. It is a long struggle and will have it's trials and hardships, but he has learned from the mistakes of his immediate predecessors and has improved on them. His father caved in to int'l pressure, and Clinton failed to recognize the threat of terrorism after the 1993 attack.

    I am not saying W. is perfect and won't make errors from time to time. But he is taking the threat seriously and he is sticking to his principles and that BY DEFINITION is better than what the USA had been doing for the last decades. It's not any one political party's fault - the USA [i]in toto [/i]had no focus regarding this issue. We have one now and I admire Bush for what he is doing, no matter how stupid lefties may think I am for saying so. History will smile upon W.

    H.W. Bush won a lot of points in European polls when he fell back in 1991 and people praised his "multilateralism" or some such nonsense. Well, it turns out he was dead wrong...spectacularly so. Clinton was praised for his "measured response" to the WTC attack in 1993 and he clearly should have said to himself, "We got lucky that more people didn't die, AQ is trying to kill americans, this was an act of war. We are going and getting these bastards!" He didn't. This was only ten short years ago!! We HAVE to learn from history, and we have, aparently.

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by AirForceJetFan[/i]@Nov 11 2003, 10:43 AM
    [b] Prior to the US going in to Iraq to save our friends the Kuwaitis there was never an Al Queda/Bin Laden attack on US soil (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So we went in, we rescued Kuwait and instead of finishing the job and coming home we decide it would be a good idea to keep our troops there for a decade or so.

    Then the hypocritical religous zealots are mad and they decide the US is polluting their land so they must now launch terrorist attacks against the US which puts us in the situation we're in today. So without yelling and screaming about right/wrong with the current situation, why is it we never hear about what the root of this problem really was? If we had gone in, saved Kuwait and left, none of this would have occurred.

    The US can't allow a guy like Bin Laden to push us around but from all the reports I've heard, he did say he would start a war with the US if we didn't get out of the "holy land". So now it appears [b]Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr [/b] (no blind faith here, 3 consecutive presidents botched this whole ordeal and put us where we are today) didn't take him seriously enough and let him roam free.

    IMHO, if we get in, get the job done, get out....we're all good but it was the decision to make our stay indefinite (kind of like Korea that is now over 50 years)
    that put us where we are today. [/b][/quote]
    Well, I agree that there had never been an islamic terrorist attack on U.S soil prior to the first gulf war...but...If your advocating that because we defended Kuwait against a murderer who clearly had designs on not just Kuwait but as much of the region as he could get, and, who would've terrorized us in another way { oil } if we would have stood idly by I don't see where we could've done too much differently at that time.

    Should we have finished the job and gone into Iraq and ousted Saddam, that seems to be the popular notion but I don't believe at that time it was feasable, if we had advocated that position we would've gotten bogged down in partisan politics and been accused of trying to start WWIII etc.....and would've ended up haggling with the left about how we couldn't afford to lose the thousands of servicemen that it would take and couldn't afford monetarily to dislodge the leader of such a potent army.

    Remember, at that time the media was reporting the Iraqi army was the 4th largest army in the world and would be a formidable foe, I remember reports from some hysterical journalists who were predicting we could lose upwards of 10,000 men if we just wanted to push them out of Kuwait, imagine what the outcry from the left would've been if we said we not only were gonna push them out of Kuwait but continue into Baghdad, it would've caused liberal mass hysteria.

    And not only would the left been trying everything in their power to thwart such an effort, but, we never would've been able to piece together such a dominating coalition if we had been more ambitious, most of those middle eastern countries could side with us because we were defending Kuwait against Iraq which to them is O.K, but, if we wanna take this war into Iraq they cannot outwardly support us because we are now the aggressor against another middle eastern country.

    And what about France, Germany, Russia and the U.N.....you think they would've went along with us if our stated goal was to continue into Baghdad, no way, if we would've tried to do anything other than just push Saddam back into Iraq there would have been so much opposition on so many fronts that Kuwait { and their oil } probably would be controlled by the Iraqis today.

    And once we liberated Kuwait we couldn't just walk away and even if we did IMHO it wouldn't have changed anything about how the fanatics would've treated us, first off, we've had servicemen in Saudi Arabia { the holy land } for a long time, I know this cause I was in the USAF betwen 82-86 and almost got sent there myself and knew a bunch of guys that served over there, if the fanatics didn't have that particular excuse as to why they are against us they'd just invent another one like our support for Israel, or our culture, or one of a million other things they find distasteful about us.

    As far as " 3 consecutive presidents botched this whole ordeal " I would take issue with that as well, I don't know what else The 1st president Bush could've done under the circumstances he dealt with, Clinton on the other hand seemed ambivilant to the whole terrorism issue, he sat there 8 years knowing there were people sworn against us who were capable and intent on inflicting mass casualties on U.S soil and he never pressed the attack against them choosing instead to look the other way while plans were being made against us, I feel he should've been much more aggressive in trying to combat terrorism but he was far too concerned about his legacy to get involved with something as messy and complicated as that preferring to hope the $hit hit the fan after he left office.

    As for G.W Bush he now is forced to try to clean up a mess he inherited that could've at least been somewhat lessened by the previous administration but sadly was neglected, I believe he has chosen the best course of action to effectively deal with this problem.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bush I had a quote in his memoirs about NOT taking Bagdhad. To Paraphrase it said "once we got Bagdhad, what would we do with it?"

    that's pretty much where we are today. We have complete military control of a backward-ass ****pile. Fantastic.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maryland -

    I disagree that the first Bush should not have taken out Saddam, or, at least, should not have because it wasn't feasible.... You are correct in that many of our allies at the time (notably the Sauds) would not have signed on had regime change been part of the equation. However, the climate just just as difficult for W. Bush in 2002, yet he stuck to his guns. W. is getting accused of sorts of things, just as his father would have been; 'Illegal' 'war-monger' 'unilateral' it 'sosts too much' "too many soldiers are dying' etc, etc etc. I think W. clearly learned from his father's mistakes in paying too much attention to international opinion. In fact, I would even argue that his Dad is telling exactly that, regardless of what he says publicly about his decision to fall back in 1991. (I have no basis for that statement, just opinion)

    The same people who were in H.W.'s administration are in W's and they have clearly learned from their mistakes in 1991, IMO.

    We can't defer blame from HW just because idiotic liberals were gumming up the works with their hysteria back then. That's what liberals do. The real test is how whether or not a President lets that hysteria affect his strategic vision and implementation. HW did, W didn't. There's really no getting around that.

    Yes, Clinton was alseep at the switch and essentially ignored the problem, which let it get even worse. His response to the Khobar Towers and 1993 WTC attacks were shameful....

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 11 2003, 01:00 PM
    [b] Maryland -

    I disagree that the first Bush should not have taken out Saddam, or, at least, should not have because it wasn't feasible.... You are correct in that many of our allies at the time (notably the Sauds) would not have signed on had regime change been part of the equation. However, the climate just just as difficult for W. Bush in 2002, yet he stuck to his guns. W. is getting accused of sorts of things, just as his father would have been; 'Illegal' 'war-monger' 'unilateral' it 'sosts too much' "too many soldiers are dying' etc, etc etc. I think W. clearly learned from his father's mistakes in paying too much attention to international opinion. In fact, I would even argue that his Dad is telling exactly that, regardless of what he says publicly about his decision to fall back in 1991. (I have no basis for that statement, just opinion)

    The same people who were in H.W.'s administration are in W's and they have clearly learned from their mistakes in 1991, IMO.

    We can't defer blame from HW just because idiotic liberals were gumming up the works with their hysteria back then. That's what liberals do. The real test is how whether or not a President lets that hysteria affect his strategic vision and implementation. HW did, W didn't. There's really no getting around that.

    Yes, Clinton was alseep at the switch and essentially ignored the problem, which let it get even worse. His response to the Khobar Towers and 1993 WTC attacks were shameful.... [/b][/quote]
    I { respectfully } disagree that the " climate was just as difficult for W Bush in 2002 ".

    I agree internationally H.W would've faced many if not all of the obstacles placed in front of W.

    But domestically is where I believe the whole thing would've fallen apart, the country at that time didn't have a 9-11 type situation and the threat of mass casualties on U.S soil to deal with that helped push sentiment into taking on global terrorism.

    I believe without the direct threat to us the left would have successfully thwarted any attempt to go into Iraq in 1991, H.W would've been portayed by the left as an out of control lunatic hellbent on starting WWIII over nothing more than oil and a majority of the american people would've been brainwashed by the media into believing that and that combined with the international situation would've made ANY action impossible.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's an interesting point, Maryland. I'll have to think about it before responding further. Good post.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    In response to this topic:

    I suppose we should have just let Saddam waltz into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and control all the oil in the ME. I guess the world would have been a safer place, huh?

    And if we didn't, we would have had more troops available to send to Haiti and Kosovo, two places that directly threatened the security and economic stability of the United States.

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Nov 11 2003, 02:21 PM
    [b] I suppose we should have just let Saddam waltz into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and control all the oil in the ME. I guess the world would have been a safer place, huh?

    [/b][/quote]
    Well, that's pretty much what the liberals were advocating at the time.

    Of course, most liberals will try to alter history by claiming otherwise.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [b]Maryland -[/b]

    You make a good point about the climate of domestic support for a full ground invasion of Iraq in 1991. Certainly, without the fresh wounds of a domestic terror attack, the public may not have been as quick to support a protracted and bloody battle and it is very reasonable to assume that Saddam's army was more formidable in 1991 than it was in 2003.

    There is a certain "rally 'round the flag" aspect to American opinion, but that can and often does dwindle over time, especially if the battle were to take a long time or be particularly bloody.

    I think, perhaps, from a procedural standpoint you are most likely correct in your assumption that to advocate regime change in 1991 may have been unbelievably risky for HW Bush's career. However, I think that regardless of any individual's career or ambitions or any single political party's or entity's survival considerations, removing Saddam when we had the chance in 1991 was clearly what SHOULD have been done. It is exactly the same as saying that Clinton should have gone after OBL full force after the 1993 WTC attack. There may not have been public support for a long, protracted and possibly bloody campaign in Afganistan after that and people may have rightly said, "Why the hell should our children die, who is AQ!?" and all of that jazz and doing so may have not been feasible from a career-risk standpoint for Bubba. But CLEARLY, Clinton should have acted earlier and it is very likely to assume that had he done so, AQ may not have gained all of the power it had since 1993 and perhaps 9-11 may not have occurred. It's all speculation and it is very easy to both defend and attack the particular course of action pursued by both men.

    But, aside from HW Bush's "career-risk" I think I can say confidently that the USA and the world in general made a strategic error by trying the containment strategy, rather than taking Saddam out when we had the chance, in 1991. (The fact that HW Bush lost the 92 election anyway is sadly ironic in this regard)

    This is similar to the error Clinton made by essentially responding with lawyers and not tanks against AQ. Both men were motivated by immediate political considerations and not a sober, long-term strategy. Essentially every politican and every human being in the world are also motivated by such factors, so it is difficult to really hammer either one, although I would contend that in terms of degree, the errors made by Clinton are far worse, especially in light of the other opportunities and events that Clinton could have reacted differently to.

    Perhaps, in light of your points, I shouldn't say that I "blame" HW Bush, however. It is probably much more fair of me to say that, whil I don't blame anyone in particular, I lament the fact that we didn't get Saddam when we had the chance in 91.

    (Sorry for being so long-winded and circular) :(

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jets 5.....

    I agree with most of what you say, the only issue that I would disagree with would be that H.W didn't go after Iraq because he was more interested in saving his presidency than doing what was in the best interests of the country.

    The problem as I see it is most people assume that since we pushed the Iraqis back into Iraq and had them on the run the smart thing to do would just be to keep rolling into Baghdad and dislodge the regime, we certainly had the manpower to do it and could make a case we had justification, but, the decision to not go into Iraq at that time had already been made months in advance and was 100 % irreversible, the reason the decision had to be made not to go into Iraq I believe had alot less to do with H.W worrying about his presidency and alot more to do with the roadblocks that the left would've placed in front of the effort and the possibility that those roadblocks would have caused the whole effort to be abandoned and ended up with Iraq in permanent control of Kuwait { which was O.K with most liberals } which was completely unacceptable.

    Why do I feel this way.....Well, I remember all the whining the left was doing at the time when we wanted to send troops into Saudi Arabia { at the request of the Saudi's } , ironically.....it's the same leftists who didn't even want to start the job who scream loudest about how H.W's biggest mistake was that he didn't finish the job.....but anyway, IMHO H.W had to make a choice, if he states his intention at that time of dislodging the Iraqi regime look at what he's gotta go up against, internationally he's got the same people that opposed his son ie : the French, Germans, U.N...etc...bogging things down for us plus massave opposition against what would have been characterized by the leftist politicians and media as a " war for oil " by an ex oilman who is willing to put americas sons and daughters in harms way for the almighty dollar and nothing else, of course it would've been B.S but it would've played well after the weak minded heard it for the thousanth or so time and made the whole operation untenable.

    The left would have been able to set the agenda, they had the house and senate and the media would've made damn sure they had a majority of people against such a reckless, needless endeavor, with that kind of political climate around how could H.W assemble a coalition to go into Iraq { because you can't tell them we're only gonna push him out of Kuwait...and...then doublecross them with the real plan after they're assembled } what could he say to anyone except the Brits to get them on board when all those rulers realize that H.W is losing popularity at home because of this and there is gonna be a new election within 24 months where it's looking more and more likely that there will be a new regime in Washington who'll see the Iraqi situation differently.

    So now if he still proceeds it's us, the Brits, and a handful of smaller countries trying to get this whole thing together, where do we base our operations out of ?, well, the Saudi's likely say to H.W thanks...but...not here and maybe try to make a deal with the devil { Saddam } to save part of their royal skin which they're sure to lose in 24 or so months if they go along with us now only to have a democrat take office and abandon them, where else do we go ? Turkey, try to get to them from the other side ?...well...we know now how that would've turned out, Syria...don't see that one happening !, Iran...nope, Bahrain, Qatar.....you think they're gonna stick their necks out for H.W when he's hovering around 30 % or so in the polls and likely to be a 1 term president ? ...unlikely.

    So now were sitting there with our thumbs up our a$$es and unable to base our attack out of anywhere where we can be effective cause the left has sabotaged the whole thing, they're O.K with the fact that the Iraqis control alot more of the oil supply and can terrorize us economically { as a matter of fact, they'd be patting themselves on the back for helping to insure it } and we are forced to abandon our noble effort and try to appease Saddam so he doesn't cut us off from the oil we so desperately need or price it so high as to do real economic damage to the country.......OR.....

    We settle for " cutting the baby in half " so to say and go for what's doable at the time which is to settle for just dislodging Saddam out of Kuwait { piece of cake } with a coalition who can go along with us because they can justify it to their people and more importantly, being able to assemble an impressive coalition that can help counter the massave amounts of propoganda against the effort the left will be mounting which must be countered not because H.W wants to save his presidency, but because he wants to save the only mission at the time that's possible.

    To me, where H.W made his biggest mistake was not in trying to take Iraq in the Gulf War...but...after the war was over, when we had weakened his republican guard and made him vunerable we should have supported regime change from inside the country and sadly gave some people the impression we would help and then didn't follow up and were complicit in getting alot of Iraqi citiczens who believed they had U.S support killed because of our inaction.....I don't know exactly what the circumstances behind that thinking for H.W was but to me it seems inexcusable.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's a terrific post Maryland.

    I am not as sure as you are that he wouldn't have been able to get a base of operation with a broad-based coalition or UN backing. I do acknowledge that if he stated his intention of removing Saddam from the get-go that resolution 687 (or whatever it was) would not have passed, and certainly not unamimously.

    However, Turkey is important and the political situation in Turkey is quite different now than it was in 1991. Turkey lost a lot of money due to that war and America's encouragement and then subsequent betrayal of the Kurdish uprising sent almost 500,000 Kurds into Turkey, which has helped to foster the current climate of "cecession" talks among Turkish Kurds who seek an independent state of Kurdistan (including some of present-day Turkey!). It is understandable why the Turks are presently reticent to help, because their experience in 1991 was horrible and that affects their present attitudes. Also - Turkey lost money due to the sanctions imposed on Iraq and if the USA, for example, had stated that they would have not shut down the two pipelines running from Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea (via Turkey) perhaps Ankara would have been amenable to allowing us use of their bases. Popular support for the first Gulf War was low in Turkey at the time, even with the UN's backing, but it was not at current levels. Something like 95% of Turks oppose the war now, but only about 65 or 70% opposed the first Gulf War...they are not fans of Saddam's, especially in light of his treatment of their bretheren.

    But Turkey lost Saddam as a trading partner for 12 long years due to the sanctions and perhaps would have been amenable to a request for use of their land had we assuaged their financial conerns. We don't know.

    What we DO know, however, is that Turkey pleaded to the UN and the USA in 1992-1993 for hundreds of millions in compensation for their losses and we only gave them about 1/3 of what they wanted and even that delivery was delayed and tied up in red tape nonsense...Turkey is STILL pissed about that. The entire experience of the first Gulf War and America's dealings with Turkey have soured them (government and people) towards helping the USA out now. These same "fresh wounds" were not present in 1991.

    You could very well be right that they would not have helped us in 1991, but to say that "we now know how that would have turned out" is misleading - you cannot reach back in time and definitively say that.

    But, admittedly, it is a long-shot and perhaps H.W. DID try to stike such a deal. Who knows?

    It's fun to speculate - you know your stuff. Good show!

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jets 5.....

    First off I've gotta say your responses are as well thought out and reasoned as anything I've ever seen on this board.

    Now.....you may be correct about Turkey, I did dismiss them allowing us to use them as a base of operations based on recent history when in fact 1991 was a different time and they very well may have been receptive to us, I guess we'll never know if they would have stepped up for us or not but there is one thing we can be certain of.

    That is.....if the left had given H.W the proper support he needed to allow him act in the countries best interest instead of throwing out vile rhetoric about how it's all about oil etc...forcing us not to go in that direction and basically giving our enemies cover, support and encouragement then we likely would have been able to amass a strong coalition against Saddam in 1991 because they would've known America was serious and in this for the long haul and oust him then...but...since the left would've attacked the administration every chance it got for no better reason than to use his supposed warmongering as a presidential campaign issue I feel they caused us to have to settle for what we did, again, not to keep H.W in office...but...because it was too tricky politically to risk Kuwait and possibly Saidi Arabia as well.

    Keep up the good work !.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us