05-21-2008, 05:05 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the wall behind you.
Posts: 3,000
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve k
If you are the President of anything be it a company or whatever and you have people who don't believe in the same business model that you believe in then are you going to keep them on? While they can give suggestions and offer insights, the bottom line is that YOU are the President. If you have people who aren't following your wishes then yes, they will get replaced. Welcome to the real world. P.S. It happens in every Presidential Administration. Clinton's, Reagan's, Carter's etc... People come and go.
I am not familiar with what Bush Sr. had said (or didn't say) and I don't comment on thigns I'm not aware of. I'll look that up at some point and get back to you. Fair enough?
|
I can't speak as President but having been a Vice President of a corporation I can tell you that I had no use for just a bunch of "yes" men/women.
Here, let me save you the keystrokes...
Quote:
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
|
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
Pat Paulsen for President
Earth to Commish ... pwned. McFly ... pwned.
|