Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:05:13 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "Another Gulf War"

Hello everyone:

As we all must have heard by now is that Saddam has backed down and allowed
the UN inspection to enter into the AG building on Tuesday, but the Americans
cannot be allowed to enter to investigate along with the UN team.

Was not the US part of the coalition?  Bush should not agree to this term,
however, the UN has allowed this condition.  What would Saddam hide from the
US members of the inspection team that the other members of the coalition are
allowed to see?  And why Tuesday?  Since the UN is calling the shots here, they
should demand immediate access.  If the UN truly wants the sanctions that it
demands to be obeyed, they should push for immediate response.

JB says:

>Bush should support strongly the French and British and anyone else who
>wants to tackle Hussein, but should leave it alone and keep the US out.

I agree if the French and British want to (if the event arises) tackle the
air strikes alone.  However, since the US was the bulwark of the entire
coalition, and it was the French and British who agreed to back the US in
the Gulf War and eagerly wanted to back the US with air strikes during this
current affair, they would probably be much more happier if the US were spear-
heading the strikes.  If the EC wants its members of France and Great Britian
to launch air strikes without the support of the US, then I think the UN would
allow it even though Saddam wants the US because of his belief that the US is
still in charge.  We are not, the UN is in charge.

>It is the accepted opinion in the military circles that a government should
>never stop fighting a war until its political objectives are accomplished.
>this is what we did.  The two objectives were to free Kuwait and remove
>Hussein from power.

Unfortunately, it was the UN, not the US who was sanctioning the war.  If the
US has been the one in charge both goals would have been accomplished.  We
may not have had the backing some of the allies that were part of the coalition
like the Arab allies, but we would certainly had the backing from France and
especially Great Britian (given the British investments in Kuwaiti oil). Would
the Arab nations backed a US sponsored attacked?  Maybe considering the hatred
they have for Saddam, certainly Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where Saddam had plan-
ned to invade, not just Kuwait.  If it had been just 'governments' and not
the UN, yes, the goals would all have been met.  To stop 150 miles from Bag-
dad and not finish what we obviously wanted to do, drive out Saddam, certainly
bothers not only us but everyone else involved also.  I guess we would have
to ask the UN why the job was not completed.

KAT and Valentine agree that a quick strike, and a decisive one would help
Bush emensely if he put 'a seal and stamp' on the whole affair. I do also.
It would help him in the polls especially since the American public also
wants a 'complete' victory.  A strike not only against the AG building, but
other strategic areas either missed before or that being rebuilt.  But defin-
ately Bagdad!  Allowing Saddam to get his way by not admitting US inspectors
as part of the team is a victory for Saddam, and is really a slap in our face.
Americans are getting tired of slaps, and hopefully so is President Bush.

...but then again, we would have to ask the UN.  Nuts to the UN!


'That's whathappens when your commanding general starts acting like an ally
instead of an American.' - General George S. Patton when he was told that
General Eisenhower chose General Montgomry's invasion plans over Pattons to
take the city of Palermo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU