When America will come back for the rest of the middle east

[5thHorseman]

So what about mustard gassing Kurds?

Either way, Saddam Hussein refused inspections for years. Would you confront him or let him carry on and be a beacon for other nations?

No doubt though that Bush and his lap dog Blair lied through their teeth to go to war. I don't know why they didn't just say 'he keeps saying no to inspections, he funds terror, kills ethnic minorities, he needs to get got.'

[kılıç_mehmet]

So what about mustard gassing Kurds?

Either way, Saddam Hussein refused inspections for years. Would you confront him or let him carry on and be a beacon for other nations?

No doubt though that Bush and his lap dog Blair lied through their teeth to go to war. I don't know why they didn't just say 'he keeps saying no to inspections, he funds terror, kills ethnic minorities, he needs to get got.'

That was in the late 80ies.
So were any other massacres that happened during the gulf war, when people thought it would be a good idea to flaunt the authority of the Baatist government.

[5thHorseman]

After the first gulf war yes, the Shia uprising the south, crushed, with the help of General Schwartzkof

Second gulf war, I don't know.

---

But will look into it.

[kılıç_mehmet]

After the first gulf war yes, the Shia uprising the south, crushed, with the help of General Schwartzkof

Second gulf war, I don't know.

---

But will look into it.

The first one was the Iraq-Iran war, in which Iraq received US assistance. The "Gulf war" as I know it was the one during 1990-1991.

[5thHorseman]

We know they had WMD's

Wasn't the question their capability to produce them?

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1061/wikileak...ats-remain

---

Interesting one for you.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHE407A.html

[Faith No More]

I don't know why they didn't just say 'he keeps saying no to inspections, he funds terror, kills ethnic minorities, he needs to get got.'

Because if this was all that mattered, they would have to justify intervening in Iraq while leaving alone all of the evil people in other places such as Africa. Let's face it, Sadaam was a bad guy, but there are many other countries under the control of worse factions. Bush had to concoct a scenario that would justify ignoring all the other bad guys while going straight for Sadaam.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Umm, something which has always puzzles me:

Even under Saddam, Iraq was still a sovereign nation.ANOTHER nation,(US) DEMANDS to inspect its facilities for WMD,which the US does not want them to have.

Don't know about you,but my reaction would be to tell the US (or UN) go fuck itself.


As become very clear very early, the l invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Hussein. The WMD story was a bald faced lie.

[Minimalist]

When America will come back for the rest of the middle east

Apparently the day after President Romney takes office. Reinforce your bomb shelters, oh Arabs!

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics...dominance/

"This century must be an American century. In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world," Romney said. "God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will."

He offered few specifics on Afghanistan, but vowed to conduct a full review in his first 100 days in office to determine "the presence necessary to secure our gains and successfully complete our mission." That’s among seven other priorities for the first 100 days that include rebuilding the Navy fleet, ordering aircraft carriers into the eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf to help pressure Iran, and deploying of a national ballistic-missile defense system.

The hardline policies, which are in some ways a return to those of the Bush administration, include specifics on various fronts aside from Afghanistan.

Note the inclusion of more god shit for the lunatic fringe of the republican party!

[Dotard]

[/quote]

Nations NEVER base foreign policy on moral principle.

That is your opinion pad, doesn't make it a fact.

The USA did the right thing in the Middle East? Really? When was that? All I've ever noticed is the perceived best interest of the US [incumbent administration] in action. Any positive outcome for others is due to afterthought or happy accident.

All hail the aussie's authority on this matter. :eyeroll:

You been there pad? Live in a country that borders with the middle east?
I have been. Not only are we rebuilding the war damages, we built, and are building, a lot of shit they didn't have. Schools, Hospitals, major water/power distribution, roads and highways on and on.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

That is your opinion pad, doesn't make it a fact.

Agreed,it IS 'only my opinion', but it's also the basis of realpolitik,which is also 'only in my opinion' the way the world REALLY works..

Whether I've been to Iraq is a strawman as is the claim Americans are doing a lot of good in Iraq. I never said otherwise.The US did a great deal of good in both Germany and Japan after WW2 too.That had nothing to with altruism either.

You were a private contractor? Get paid the full going rate,plus allowances for being there? If so,your defence sounds a lot like vested interest masquerading as moral principle,a common US position (and well beloved by governments and business everywhere).

So far, I've seen no evidence to change my view that foreign policy is never based on moral principle. IE That ALL relationships between countries are ALWAYS quid pro quo on some level; FOR GOVERNMENTS, NOT NECESSARILY INDIVIDUALS.

A Libyan recently asked; how much the US would have become involved in the current conflict if Libya produced oranges instead of Oil.? Same goes for Iraq.

I guess our world views differ.That's OK with me; I'm not out to change your mind.


Thought for today

If the ends do not justify the means,what on earth does?(anon)