[]
Dalantech said:[]
AllenAyres said:What part do you see as 'hype'? The fact that he gasses whole villages in his own country? Or fact that he has had his own relatives killed who he didn't trust? Or facts that he has lied for 12 years about the treaties and 17 UN resolutions he has thumbed his nose at?
[/]
During the Iraq / Iran war Sadam was a friend of the US. His military wa trained by Americans! The US has consistently created the very same bad guys that they have had to fight. I was actually glad when Turkey voted to turn down all the money that the US was throwing at them to allow the US to use their bases: After giving the Turks +26 Billion dollars they could turn into the next problem in the region...
[/]
Again you avoid my questions and answer obtusely. What part was hype?
[]
Dalantech said:[]
AllenAyres said:What makes a war 'popular'? Who in their right mind is 'pro-war'? The people of the US overwhelmingly support the troops and the decision to go into Iraq (the polls were up to >70% for it as of Tuesday).
We aren't
for war, tho it is a necessary evil at times. I noticed you left out the Italians and Mussolini in the 30's and 40's - he wasn't much if any better than Hitler.
The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
[/]
First: I'm an American. So your using Mussolini as a way to assassinate my character and weaken my arguments is limp at best
Oh, the US did nothing in Bosnia for years, and Maloshavich (sp?) almost succeeded in his genocide...
[/]
The US did nothing in Bosnia at the request of the UN, if it weren't for the impeachment of Clinton, we would have never done anything in Kosovo either. Things that should have been done kept getting punted, hoping that there was enough field to get out of his 8 years without another Vietnam war. There's Rwanda in '94, Saddam's continued development of WMD throughout the 90's, Korea, Iran, etc etc etc. Instead the administration went through the UN for more resolutions which the countries immediately ignored.
[]
Dalantech said:[]
AllenAyres said:While you are answering my questions, please tell us how the US 'gave Saddam the green light for invading Kuwait in the early 90's'... the UN upheld something being done in Bosnia during that time as well. [/]
Because he took his plans for invading Kuwaitt to the Sr. Bush's administration and they did not tell him no. You really need to watch more than CNN or Fox News. Kuwait was slant drilling into the Iraqi side of an oil field that is on the border between the two countries. After the Kuwaitis pumped out oil that belonged to Iraq they sold that oil on the world markets below the price that was set by OPEC. Sadam confronted them about it and Kuwait ignored him.
Now, I'm not trying to defend Sadam Hussein: I think he needed to get overthrown 12 years ago. But the US must stop creating problems in the world by supporting countries only when it's beneficial, and then abandoning them when there is no longer any profit to be had! We trained Sadam's military. It's common knowledge that the CIA sent advisors to Iraq during their war with Iran. How much of what happened to the Kurds is our fault Allen? That's what I mean when I say that things are not always as they seem... [/]
First, I don't have cable TV, so I do not watch CNN or Fox.
Second, please point to
any verification that Iraq brought their invasion plans to Bush Sr. and the greenlight given. Don't care where, just somewhere. Kuwait had been forced by Iraq to forgive the huge debt owed to Kuwait for their financial backing during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq then used the claim that Kuwait was drilling an oilfield that straddled their border (while not sharing the profits) as an excuse to invade and annex Kuwait. The Arab states tried to mediate and Iraq invaded anyway. Kuwait didn't want to appear to be a puppet of the West, so they didn't ask for help until the invasion and annexation was already done (the invasion and annexation only took ~8 hours).
Third, the Iran/Iraq war has little to do with the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq in '89, other than Saddam was involved in both. Iran had stopped supporting the Kurds in 1975. Saddam gassed the Kurds because they were a seperatist group who wanted independence and this was Saddam's way of quelling that (yes, a simplistic description, but the salient points, nonetheless).
How would this have been handled differently if it were up to you? Would you have had the US more involved throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's (definitely not something the Arab states would have tolerated), or would you have had the US ignore the pleas for help when the smaller countries were swallowed up by the larger ones?
