NY Times Photograph
Out of context: Reply #24
- Started
- Last post
- 61 Responses
- xaoscontrol0
That's old news, though. That was a couple of days ago that it happend.
I know the Army was trying ot hold it down but my understanding is that they pulled the Army out, restationed them around the city and have moved the Marines in to patrol. I'm of the thinking that they should have done that in the first place. I doubt Bush will turn tail on that one like Slick Willie did with Mogadishu.
The thing with this whole scenario is that people overlook the fact that not only that country but the entire world may very well be better off with a Saddam-free Iraq. It doesn't matter if there were or were not WMDs in there and it doesn't matter if it was about 'freeing the people of iraq of an evil regime' or ousting and 'immanent threat'.....they're better off.
Even Hans Blitz said the same thing a couple of weeks ago. Bush was impatient, I think. He wanted to get it done before the next election, I'm sure because if he didn't then the liberal/democrat party's would be saying that he did nothing. Then again, there could very have been anti-war rallys all over if the UN decided to go in along with the US.
Interesting history note: Back inthe day, the UN voted against getting involved in putting a stop to Hitler's sweep across Europe.