Quote:
Originally Posted by leoslayer
we are not rewriting anything. its a fact before we dropped 1 bomb in astan we told the taliban hand everybody over and let us see the intel. they refused.
we also told sh let the inspectors see anything they want and we specifically asked for certain individuals. if memory serves right one of the 103 guys was one of them. he said no.
he did the same thing in gulf 1 we gave him a warning he said lets fight. we gave him a warning again this time and i guess he was just stubborn cause again he said lets fight. those are facts.
but you are still grouping the al Quaeda hunt with the Iraq affair. Since SH drove over the border to occupy Kuwait, there has been a bitter word battle with the US. Bush 41 and his line in the sand. While geographically both nations may be in the same vicinity, the former was chosen from an intel basis, while the latter was a fabricated grudge match based on 1990.
The missing concept from your analysis is the rule of law, that is supposed to govern the actions and activities of the United States of America. You don't like what they do, fair enough. But that is far from the ability of one nation to impose its
custom of the week on another. The aggressor always considers themselves on the correct side, and that is where the rule of law is supposed to correctly establish what can and can't happen.
Its from that side Americans will lose the battle. While the Islamic code is quite horrid, it tries to maintain consistency. It has no place for the rewriting tendency of lawyers, or what appear to be autocrats. So while the Libyan intervention, and the Kosovo operations were to save lives, the political interventions were what?
Here's the rub, if there is no consensus from the USA as to why those military exercises took place, how are those attacked supposed to know. Instead they group ALL activity together, which can explain the tendency to attack any partisan target.