Nightmare Scenario: Over a thousand dead US soldiers and a bill of around $125bn...

[SlowwHand]

That rips it. You get strung up first.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

We know it's about the oil. We know some of those hawks in Washington have been planning for a long time.

Can you lefties make up your minds . Was it all run by Neoconservatives or was it all about interests? You can't have both (because they are fundamentally opposite positions).

I don't see why not really. I mean maybe it's just one, but the other comes with the package.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
(a) It was Evil Knevil, not Odin.

I am terible sorry. I'd like to apologize to Odin.

(b) You might want to not contribute to the global stereotype of ignorant Americans by actually learning what really constitutes "treason" against the United States. Your (or anyone else's) approval or disapproval of what someone says or what opinion they express is not an element of treason.

I know the definition of treason. Obviously, he is not an actual traitor.

But that particular comment was rather offensive IMO.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Hueij

Attacked Iran.

With US support

Sorry Hueij, you're normally a bit brighter and more interested in accuracy.


Not correct - Saddam was utterly unprepared to go for the Iranians, and what happened initially was a small attack to slap the Iranians and show how tough Saddam was, after the Ayatollah Khomeini's government had breached bilateral agreements on use of the Shatt al Arab and had agents attempt assassination of Iraqi officials in the Shiite-dominated areas of southern Iraq.

Saddam himself didn't intend a general war to result, he thought he was so impressive he'd intimidate the Ayatollah to the bargaining table. Instead, the Iranians started seriously kicking his ass, and the US and the rest of the arab world had to bail Saddam's ass out of the lurch to prevent the Iranians from overruning southern Iraq and suddenly becoming the dominant power in the entire gulf region.

Nobody initially advocated Saddam attacking the Iranians, because it was well known he didn't have a chance in hell.

Invaded Koweit.

With no objections from the US

Wrong again. April Glaspie bashers have made a lot of the US "no interest" statement, while ignoring that the statement was made in the context of an upcoming Arab League meeting in which the Iraqi-Kuwaiti disputes were to be discussed. The context of invasion was never discussed, and the consensus of US military intel and CIA types was that the Iraqi movements to the border with Kuwait were typically Saddam-esque saber rattling.

Used chemical warfare on Iran.

With chemical weapons provided by the US

Used chemical warfare on civilian population.

See above

Incorrect on both counts. The US can not transfer such weapons without express approval by Congress, due to the sensitive nature of the technology - Reagan or Bush would have been skinned alive, and a lot of right-wing national security hawks would have been there to do the skinning. What the US did was equivalent to after the fact complicity, in that we diverted bogus Dept. of Commerce and Dept. of Agriculture loan guarantees to unspecified military programs of the Iraqis, to be used at their discretion. We also provided after the fact bomb damage assessments, and real time Intelsat raw take, so the Iraqis were able to do strike planning with a much higher degree of accuracy. There is no evidence that US personnel ever participated in planning chemical strikes, but they did look the other way, and continue providing intel, without concerning themselves with the warfighting methods used to exploit that intel.

The Iranians did it too, and in neither case, did the US particularly care. However, we didn't supply the material, direct it's use, and we weren't asked for permission. We just didn't get worked up over it. Not many people really did at the time, though.

Tried to build nuclear weapons.

Give you this one, but how about invading your friends in Pakistan who actually build those weapons?

And they did that in response to your buddies and ours in Delhi building their own nuke. Tell you what, why doesn't the EU commit it's military forces with us, and we'll jointly declare an "Indo-Pakistani Nuclear Weapon Free Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere" and invade the bastards and do something about it?

Tried to build large stockpile of chemical wepons.
Tried to build large stockpile of biological wepons.

Any proof of that or are these another example of Weapons Of Mass Deception?

Hell, that's in the original UN inspector's reports. The only thing unknown is if/how much he tried to add during the time that the inspectors were kicked out, and how much of the unaccounted for material was actually destroyed. That Saddam was involved in these programs after the end of the Gulf War is beyond dispute - the real questions are if/when he stopped, and the status of those programs and the materials previously produced and not accounted for to the UN inspectors.

Even in the last go-round, Blix's report to the UN pointed out that the Hussein regime was less than forthcoming, and that there were still significant questions as to WMD activity and planning, even though evidence of live WMD's hadn't been uncovered by UNMOVIC.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat
But that particular comment was rather offensive IMO.

Offensive, yes, but you'll hear far worse over the course of your lifetime.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The diplomat
But that particular comment was rather offensive IMO.

That's what we do here. We offend each other. I'm offended at least 10 times a day. Rarely do I even say anything about it, and only once have I threatened anyone.

[Odin]

Who mixed me up with Evil Kneevil?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't see why not really. I mean maybe it's just one, but the other comes with the package.

So one foreign world view that rejects the notion of intervening for 'interests' is the same as the world view that wants to go in for 'interests'? That's... interesting. Liberals and Realists in IR are the same to you then?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The diplomat

We never used chems in Vietnam. And, the agent orange story was proven false. Peter Arnett resigned over it remember?

News to me. I guess it comes from living in a cold and stormy backwater at the *** end of the world.

Depleted Uranium then.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's what we do here. We offend each other.

Really? And here, I thought the OT was suppose to be a nice, polite debating society.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kidicious

That's what we do here. We offend each other. I'm offended at least 10 times a day. Rarely do I even say anything about it, and only once have I threatened anyone.

Man, Fez wanted to throw me out of a helicopter, but I don't hold that against him.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Really? And here, I thought the OT was suppose to be a nice, polite debating society.

It's not, but that has nothing to do with it. People are offended by other peoples view points. It can't be helped.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Odin
Who mixed me up with Evil Kneevil?

I am really really sorry. It was completely unintentional.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't see why not really. I mean maybe it's just one, but the other comes with the package.

So one foreign world view that rejects the notion of intervening for 'interests' is the same as the world view that wants to go in for 'interests'? That's... interesting. Liberals and Realists in IR are the same to you then?

But the fact is the the US recieved two benefits. The oil and the power.

[Odin]

Originally posted by The diplomat


I am really really sorry. It was completely unintentional.

it 'tis OK.