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

[Victor Galis]

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).

Not necessarily. When several interests all want the same policy, it happens. The one thing that this was not about was liberating the Iraqi people.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I have another for you.
3000 civilians dead.

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with the price of beans in Peru?



Thus far, it is apparent that Iraq didn't have **** to do with 9-11. No amount of obfuscation or insinuation by our administration can change that. What it can do, however, is convinced the simple-minded that Hussein was behind it all, and that Iraq was a part of our glorious War On Terror. Christ, this pisses me off.

[Hueij]

Oh f***, I have to be serious at 3.30AM

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

Thanks, but I think I'm as bright as I normally am

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.

I didn't say you actually pushed Saddam to attack Iran. But when he did you gave him every support you could give him. Like you say below... You don't have to be as cynical as I am, but here is a guy that's trying to beat up another guy that kicked out you beloved Shah and held your embassy personel as hostages (and in the mean time give Reagan the opportunity to become president)... Well, you can do the math yourself...

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.

No matter how you try to turn this, bottom line is that you gave Saddam the impression that invading Kuwait was of no matter to the US. Aside from the fact that Kuwait almost begged to be invaded...

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.

No comment...

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?

Uhuh... You are the guys that proclaimed yourselves Policeman Of The Globe... Only if you deny "evil" countries their nukes you also should deny your current loves their nukes. Your current love could be your worst enemy tomorrow.

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.

Well, I think the answer to this is clear... Months after the "liberation" there is still no proof of these Weapons Of Mass Deception. Saddam being forthcoming to Blix or not withstanding....

Pheww...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
I was not speaking of his actions. I don't know his actions. But the words were treasonous in nature.

Please learn what treason is in the U.S., thanks.

Ok, fine, I'll help. Wishing U.S. soldiers dead, while certainly tasteless and despicable, isn't treason, even for a U.S. citizen:

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Why I have to give basic civics lessons to conservatives who claim to be such loyal Americans, I don't know!

[Hueij]

Maybe because they are conservatives?

[Odin]

Kuwait was asking for trouble when it drilled DIAGONALLY into Iraqi soil to get IRAQI oil. We should of stayed out of that. Saddam may be a jack@ss but he had a legitimite reason to invade, how would you like it if another country stole your oil and they didn't stop.

[Guynemer]

Didn't I see that on The Simpsons?

So that would make Burns the Kuwatis, and Skinner would be Hussein...

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Actually wishing US soldiers dead when they are actively engaged in active combat could be construed as treasonous. if you wish US soldiers dead when they are in active combat, you are essentially expressing support and encouragement to the enemy thus fitting "or in adhering to their enemies".

So maybe before you go around teaching us conservatives our civic lesson, you should take a few civi classes yourself. You might just learn a thing or two if you try really heard.

[Odin]

My interpretation of a traitor according to the US Constitution is fighting in an enemy's military (yevying war against us) or being a citizen of the US spying for the enemy against the US(adhering to our enimies, giving them aid or comfort).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Actually wishing US soldiers dead when they are actively engaged in active combat could be construed as treasonous.

It's impossible to wish 'treasonous' thoughts. Thoughts are not treason.

[Shi Huangdi]

Somehow I suspect that for some of these clowns here a thousand dead US soldiers is only a nightmare scenario because that is not enough US soldiers, they want more to die.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Odin
Kuwait was asking for trouble when it drilled DIAGONALLY into Iraqi soil to get IRAQI oil. We should of stayed out of that. Saddam may be a jack@ss but he had a legitimite reason to invade, how would you like it if another country stole your oil and they didn't stop.

Oh my

You are full of it

Did you mention the part about Saddam wanting the Kuwaitis to forgive his war debts?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

But if you say that the US went expressly FOR those two benefits, then you say it is a Realist war, and not a Neo-Conservative war, as Neocons are Liberals in IR (though ones more willing to use force).

[Victor Galis]

As many US soldiers dead as it takes to oust Bush from power in 2004. If none are required for him to lose the election, then I hope no more die, if 1,000 deaths is what it takes, 1,000 soldiers is a small price to pay for freedom.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

But if you say that the US went expressly FOR those two benefits, then you say it is a Realist war, and not a Neo-Conservative war, as Neocons are Liberals in IR (though ones more willing to use force).

But Realists see power as the cause of war, and Idealists see economic causes. That's what I remember from polisci, but that was before the day of the neo-cons. How are neocons liberals?