John Kerry "A Critical Time For Iraq"

[TXSTYLE]

Senator Kerry’s Speech at Georgetown University scheduled for today:

“A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.

The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.

As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.

The Challenge in Iraq:

Now more than 2,000 brave Americans have given their lives, and several hundred thousand more have done everything in their power to wade through the ongoing internal civil strife in Iraq. An Iraq which increasingly is what it was not before the war -- a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists and a magnet for foreign terrorists. We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.

Kerry Defends The Right to Dissent:

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

In fact, while some say we can’t ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no – in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn’t pessimism, it’s patriotism.

The Truth About How We Got Here:

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

[TXSTYLE]

Continues...

Administration’s Mistakes Have Narrowed Our Options:

We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been.

The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military.

When after September 11th, flags flew from porches across America and foreign newspaper headlines proclaimed “We’re all Americans now,” the Administration could have kept the world united, but they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they pushed allies away, isolated America, and lost leverage we desperately need today.

When they could have demanded and relied on accurate instead of manipulated intelligence, they chose not to. They were wrong – and instead they sacrificed our credibility at home and abroad.

When they could have given the inspectors time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson’s report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead they attacked him, and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq. We don’t know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history. History will judge the invasion of Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy misadventures of all time.

But the mistakes were not limited to the decision to invade. They mounted, one upon another.

When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong again. When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. He was wrong. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the “insurgency was in its last throes.” He was wrong.

Bush Administration: The Real Cut and Run Republicans

Now after all these mistakes, the Administration accuses anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. But we are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense.

And still today they cut and run from the truth.

[TXSTYLE]

Conclusion:

The Kerry Plan: The Path Forward

This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.

To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase “we will stay as long as it takes,” who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.

It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.

In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

The Military Agrees:

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.

We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.

It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.

We Need A Political Solution:

Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.

We Need a Regional Security Agreement:

The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We’ve proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it’s their turn to do their part.

The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.

To enlist the support of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that strengthens the security of the countries in the region and the wider community of nations. This requires a phased process including improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and participation by countries both outside and within the Middle East.

Improve Training:

Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

Win the Real War on Terror:

We will never be as safe as we should be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we must win – the war on Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the terrorists that are resurfacing even in Afghanistan. These are the make or break months for Iraq. The President must take a new course, and hold Iraqis accountable. If the President still refuses, Congress must insist on a change in policy. If we do take these steps, there is no reason this difficult process can not be completed in 12-15 months. There is no reason Iraq cannot be sufficiently stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can’t soon be on their way home, and no reason we can’t take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves. Only then will we have provided leadership equal to our soldiers’ sacrifice – and that is what they deserve."

[drink300]

Monday morning quarterbacking....

Flip flop, flip flop, as usual.

If we wanted your input, Mr. Kerry, we would have elected you President.

drink300

[TXSTYLE]

Originally Posted by drink300

Monday morning quarterbacking....

Flip flop, flip flop, as usual.

If we wanted your input, Mr. Kerry, we would have elected you President.

drink300

Spoken like Dubya himself...

[drink300]

I do have to give Kerry credit on one front...at least he stated an actual PLAN this time. But this "dissent" for the war by people like him has to STOP. Seriously...we were successful in Afghanistan for one major reason: Troop Moral. We would have been successful in Iraq if the troops felt like the whole country was behind them. But they don't anymore and people like Kerry are not helping matters. You can't be "against the war" and "for the troops" all at the same time.

Many liberals might not like it, but there is a mission to do there and we all need to get behind the troops and the war effort and understand we ARE STILL fighting terrorists there everyday. The world IS a safer place for what we did in Iraq.

Even if parts of this war planning are and were being grossly mishandled, that doesn't mean the war was not worth it. Hate the war if you must, but tell the troops "we appreciate you and your effort was not in vain".

drink300

[RobSoVIP]

Originally Posted by drink300

I do have to give Kerry credit on one front...at least he stated an actual PLAN this time. But this "dissent" for the war by people like him has to STOP. Seriously...we were successful in Afghanistan for one major reason: Troop Moral. We would have been successful in Iraq if the troops felt like the whole country was behind them. But they don't anymore and people like Kerry are not helping matters. You can't be "against the war" and "for the troops" all at the same time.

Many liberals might not like it, but there is a mission to do there and we all need to get behind the troops and the war effort and understand we ARE STILL fighting terrorists there everyday. The world IS a safer place for what we did in Iraq.

Even if parts of this war planning are and were being grossly mishandled, that doesn't mean the war was not worth it. Hate the war if you must, but tell the troops "we appreciate you and your effort was not in vain".

drink300

Umm...

1) How was Afghanistan a success? All we did was pushed the Taliban out of office. Afghanistan now has:
-More war lords than prior to the US led invasion
-Huge opium markets controlled by war lords (The largest drug trade ever in Afghanistan is happening right now...)
-Taliban fighters
-Osoma Bin Laden is still there for god's sake. Why is the man who attacked us still loose?



2) I have not heard ONE democrat who has critisized the war, critisize the millitary (except in the extreme examples such as the Abu Gharib torture, and the porn for photo fiasco). The little white lie that you conservatives like to spread that critisizing a war means critisizing the troops is outrageous, and a majority of America Adults are starting to realize this.

The very fact that Bush is denying the American people to see the coffin of a brave US soldier as he is coming home to rest in the land that he died for is increadible... the words- "unpatriotic" come to mind. This administration is finally showing its true colors. If they really cared about the US soldiers, they would be doing something about armor, they would be doing something about shortening the stay for national guardsmen and reserves, they would have planned the war better in the first place and been open to comments or ideas that didn't exactly mirror theirs, and finally, they wouldn't have lied, and misled the american citizen so much.

I dont care much for Kerry. He gave it a shot, he was the wrong guy for the party to run on, lets move on... However, there are some very good points made. Unfortunately, alot of you will simply hear that its Kerry, make a flip-flop remark, or attack his wife, and move on.

[1SICKLEX]

Looking at the polls.
Americans will vote for ANY Democratic presidential candidate.
Americans are pissed off with the Democratic party
Americans are MORE PISSED at the inept Reupublicans
Americans are SICK AND TIRED of seeing their young sons and daughters killed for what looks like, no ()#$() reason.

Funny, during the Civil RIghts era, slavery, when we imprisoned Asians during WWII, when there are riots etc, you don't see any countries just coming in here telling us what to do.

[bitkahuna]

Sorry I dozed off about half way through the 2nd post of the speech.

[Lil4X]

When Kerry of all people tries to wrap himself in the flag, it must be one of the signs of the end times. Here’s an American turncoat who sold out a generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines for personal profit. I can think of nothing more despicable than falsely testifying that he “witnessed” the systematic rape, murder, and pillage of innocents in order to gain a national platform – when he was never NEAR the pitched battles of the war. He was – and is – a pretender. He not only defamed every service member who served in Vietnam, he desecrated the memory of those who fought and died in the service of their nation - while covering his own cowardly performance in battle with a thin tapestry of lies. His actions after his three-month “tour” of the war zone speak volumes to where his real patriotism lies – the Brahmins of Boston.

While the leadership of the radical wing of the Democrat Party, consisting of a handful of over-age hippies – burnouts from the “peace” movement of the ‘60’s, I can’t believe they represent more than a small percentage of the Party. Their “counterculture” was appealing to disaffected youth in its day, but most students today are far more intelligent than those who blindly followed the protesters forty years ago – simply because they represented a rebellion against their parents’ generation. To be relevant in future elections, the Democrat Party needs to silence Kerry immediately. He is a deeply personal insult to an entire generation of Americans. The one that votes. The sixties are over, rebellion for its own sake is not only ineffective, it attempts to promote anarchy by offering no viable alternative.

Kerry claims that we entered the war based on faulty intelligence. He is demonstrating his ignorance. First, intelligence is NEVER 100% accurate; it only represents our best estimate of a situation based upon the information available at the time. Intel is a perishable commodity; it does not lend itself to months of review and decision by committee. To say otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous. We operate on the best information we have.

Second, he ignores the fact that we have ousted both the Taliban and their paymaster and armorer, Sadaam Hussein. We have taught the ignorant peasants of the Middle East that Hollywood action movies are poor training films, that holding down the trigger on an automatic weapon produces a lot of noise, a shower of brass, but very few casualties; that actually sighting the weapon is necessary to produce hits, and screaming “allah is great!” is no substitute for effective fire and maneuver. It generally gains you a load of steel-jacketed lead in your chest and a mouthful of dirt.

As a result, both Afghanistan and Iraq have held their first free elections in a generation, and have turned out to vote in numbers that should shame Americans, despite the threat of bombers and snipers. We have a political solution in place. Majority rule with minority rights. Sunnis will participate in the new government of Iraq - they voted for that! Where was John when the voters of Iraq decided for themselves that they would be a democracy, and reinforced that decision with a new constitution?

The enemy is not a loose confederation of “freedom fighters”, but primarily the dregs of the old regimes that know they will face the headsman when their cause finally collapses and they are taken captive. They have nothing to lose; they are quite literally fighting for their lives.

I love it when John Kerry attempts to evaluate military strategy. His training at the Paris Peace talks evidently didn’t take. He should have listened more carefully to his mentor, Uncle Ho. His analysis is contradictory – first he wants more troops, then fewer. Again the flip-flop. He has yet to understand that the enemy is hanging on his every word. If he pledges to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan by April 15, you can bet the war will begin on the 16th. The boy needs to listen to the ground commanders in country, not a few superannuated desk-jockeys at the Pentagon. Those are the guys that formed the failed strategies of Vietnam.

It’s easy for the elitists to pontificate over the conduct of the war. They say “Pull out!”, but they will not be there for the denouement. Saigon is the model here. Turning it over to the locals too soon may get our troops on the helicopter, but those left behind won’t have a great time of it when we’re gone.

War has changed in the last ten or fifteen years. No longer are we threatened by nations, but by terror groups that cross international boundaries. You can’t say “We shouldn’t invade Iraq”, if that’s where the criminals are. By funding, feeding, arming and hiding them, Iraq was a willing participant in the global terror that is radical Islam. We can no longer think in territorial terms. Terror is not confined by national boarders, nor is it represented solely by charismatic leaders. Terror is more akin to a criminal enterprise – it is a decentralized confederation of warlords, “religious” fanatics, and profiteers who no longer command massive armies, but individual terror cells that can bring down office buildings in New York, halt trains in Spain and London, or destroy resort hotels in the South Pacific.

We must act as a police task force, raiding the terrorist’s centers of power, weapons caches, and training facilities. We must use the necessary means to extract intelligence from captives without all the niceties of reasonable search and seizure and due process. These aren’t American citizens, but international criminals – soldiers in a global war. Will it be completely fair? No, there are bound to be mistakes – but such is the nature of war. Will we take more casualties? Yes, while every coalition troop who dies in combat is a great tragedy, it is the COST of war. It is why we avoid war when possible, but once in, fight to win decisively – so that we never have to go back and fight it again.

But Kerry would rather cut and run – to his "superior" moral ground. Sorry John, you flunked Strategy and Tactics 101. Worse, you don’t learn by experience. But of course your “experience” you speak of is limited to a few weeks on the line, running from the sound of the guns. Many of your generation stood and fought. You dishonor those men every time you open your mouth.

-0-

[bmgs400]

Honestly I believe any involvement in IRAQ should (and must ) have been a UN decision. It's not our place especially since IRAQ (the country) didn't attack us. Too many additional innocent lives have been lost since 9/11. Just adding more misery to misery. We do need to get out or IRAQ. I feel bad about 9/11, but war is not the answer. Only good intelligence and defense will prevent another attack from reoccuring. There's 1000s of people dieing in central Africa, guess there's nothing to gain if we attack there or Bush doesn't care as much for them as he does the IRAQ people...WAR...it doesn't make any sense at ALL!!!

[Lil4X]

The UN is a toothless tiger. It has never conducted a war, and has been a total embarrassment in a few border clashes in Africa when it has taken token action. Today’s UN is a thoroughly corrupt agglomeration of third world petty dictators, most of whom actively seek the destruction of the US. And we should abdicate our sovereignty to THAT?

We had plenty of UN authorization to go into Iraq both in Desert Storm and the current war. The UN has neither the power, the technology, nor the will to conduct war against the fourth largest land army on earth – possessed at the time by Iraq. We took it down in a few days. How long would the UN have taken, and at what cost?

No, the US is THE global superpower. We earned that position by the power of money and arms. That may not be PC, but it is the truth We must be certain that when we go to war it is conducted for righteous purposes. Iraq met all seven criteria of a “Just War”, including cause, intention, objectives, and proportionality.

[drink300]

First off, Lil4x, that was an amazing and beautifully worded post. Maybe you should run for office! :-)

Originally Posted by bmgs400

Honestly I believe any involvement in IRAQ should (and must ) have been a UN decision. It's not our place especially since IRAQ (the country) didn't attack us. Too many additional innocent lives have been lost since 9/11. Just adding more misery to misery. We do need to get out or IRAQ. I feel bad about 9/11, but war is not the answer. Only good intelligence and defense will prevent another attack from reoccuring. There's 1000s of people dieing in central Africa, guess there's nothing to gain if we attack there or Bush doesn't care as much for them as he does the IRAQ people...WAR...it doesn't make any sense at ALL!!!

The UN passed SIXTEEN RESOLUTIONS AGAINST IRAQ. Sadaam did not respond. How many more times did the UN have to speak up? How long do you give a dictator to respond? The ONLY answer was war. You cannot bring a despot to the bargaining table. It doesn't work in North Korea or Iran, and it did not work in Iraq.

Sadaam went to War with Iran and Kuwait, attacked Israel with Scud Missiles, planned a massive attack on Saudi Arabia and was harboring terrorists. He daily shot at US Warplanes patrolling the no fly zone, putting our troops at risk. He was responsible for as many as 1 million deaths and the torture and imprisonment on countless victims. He also caused one of the largest environmental disasters in modern history by dumping oil into international waters and setting his oil fields ablaze. We could not and should not have had to wait for the UN to act. They UN is a massive bureaucracy incapable of getting anything productive done in this modern age we live in.

And as far as international support goes, how long do you think we would have had to have waited for countries like Russia, Germany and France to join us. They were NOT interested in tethering Sadaam's power, because they were earning massive income through the UN oil-for-food scandal. Why kill your cash cow if you don't have to, right?

I am sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who had NO rights whatsoever before Bush came along appreciate your passive attitude toward their cause. If the world was ruled by Pacifists instead of people like George Bush and former leaders like Winston Churchill, all of us would be imprisoned and under the rule of brutal dictatorships.

God bless the USA and God bless George Bush for taking action when they greedy and corrupt governments of the world failed to act.

drink300

[EmeraldLexuSC3]

If Kerry was mislead, He has himself to blame for his own stupidity!!!
And now he wants was to believe what he has to say??!!
Bush publicly challenged Kerry, in the summer of 2004, to answer the following question: If Kerry had known there were no WMD in Iraq, would he have voted for the war anyway. Kerry answered yes. He has never changed that answer. He has never claimed that his vote for war was based upon his honest understanding that Iraq had WMD. Therefore, he either knew they did not, or he shares the Bush view that we should invade anyone that we don't like.
When the Downing Street Memo came out showing Bush planned this war from the get-go, based on no information of any threat from Iraq, Kerry was silent.
Now this? Withdraw 20,000 troops? What is the point of that? Except to leave the remaining troops more exposed with less cover. Is this supposed to be a bold speech? If so, it's nonsense!!

[bmgs400]

I like playing devils advocate with you guys.

Resolution..my behind. So what!! Still not worth the RISK. I don't think IRAQ will not become a democratic society or if it does it will fail. The only way to success would be if IRAQ had their own revolution, else there's no pride. They will need to stand up as we did over 200 yrs ago and fight back. Maybe it's IRAQs manifest destiny to take Kuwait, it's not our business. What Sadam had done is no worse that what the English had done in the past...he only had modern weapons and didn't use them against the American Indians.