Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Caspar Weinberger-We Didn't Support Iraq v Iran

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Caspar Weinberger-We Didn't Support Iraq v Iran

    No, Caspar says we wanted a stalemate and didn't want Iran to defeat the invading Iraqis. How did you accomplish that goal, Caspar? BY SUPPORTING IRAQ!
    Now Weinberger complains about Saddam invading other countries when they supported Iraq who invaded Iran? Notice how hypocrisy and dishonesty quickly becomes virtues for which ever party is in control?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Worked out well, too. IIRC, Iran never did conquer Iraq. Irag never conquered Iran. Stalemate!
    "We are living in the future, I'll tell you how I know, I read it in the paper, Fifteen years ago" - John Prine

    Comment

    • #3
      And about a million people died. So much for all this gnashing of teeth over Iraq invading other countries.

      Comment

      • #4
        We participated in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people by playing one side off the other and extending the war as long as possible. Go stalemate! Er, wait a minute.
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by Berzerker
          So much for all this gnashing of teeth over Iraq invading other countries.
          Iran provoked that particular war IIRC.
          I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
          For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

          Comment

          • #6
            And if one side had won, how many more would have died? I'm no Cap Weinberger apologist, believe me, but pitting Khomeini against Saddam Hussein is a no brainer.
            "We are living in the future, I'll tell you how I know, I read it in the paper, Fifteen years ago" - John Prine

            Comment

            • #7
              If the war ended quickly, far less people would've died. We were every bit the warmonger Saddam or Ayatollah Khomeini had been.
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Ramo
                If the war ended quickly, far less people would've died. We were every bit the warmonger Saddam or Ayatollah Khomeini had been.
                They were going to fight anyway. The leaders wanted it and their people wanted it. They hate each other, and America has nothing to do with it. A victory by either side might have served to destabilise the entire region. Given the nature of the two regimes, certainly the victor would have killed many, many people.
                "We are living in the future, I'll tell you how I know, I read it in the paper, Fifteen years ago" - John Prine

                Comment

                • #9
                  I seriously doubt that. The only ethnic cleansing I can recall either of the states participating in was against the Kurds.
                  "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                  -Bokonon

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DinoDoc
                    Iran provoked that particular war IIRC.
                    Well, kinda. Iran was inciting the Shiites in southern Iraq. Both sides were inciting the Kurds in the other's territory. But Saddam's decision to invade came when his generals assured him that Iraq could conquer Iran in a matter of weeks.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Well Casper is right. We wanted a stalemate. Any side winning would have been disasterous for US interests in the ME. I don't think we did anything wrong in that respect. Hell, if we told Saddam forcefully not to attack Kuwait, maybe he'd be a good partner in ME right now... food for thought.
                      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        My God how the moral relativism flies when globalism enters the picture. How would you feel if China succeeded in convincing Canada and Mexico to invade us leading to a decade long war where millions died and China was helping the invaders? Btw, I don't have a "smoking gun", but I believe Carter gave Iraq his blessing for Iraq's invasion.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Hell, if we told Saddam forcefully not to attack Kuwait, maybe he'd be a good partner in ME right now... food for thought.
                          Yup, Bush 1 got us into this mess with his weak message to Saddam before the invasion of Kuwait.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            My God how the moral relativism flies when globalism enters the picture.


                            I'm a moral relativist in all aspects, berz . So me being a moral relativist when globalism enters the picture is par for the course.

                            How would you feel if China succeeded in convincing Canada and Mexico to invade us leading to a decade long war where millions died and China was helping the invaders?


                            I might not like it, but when I feel doesn't matter. If the future says it was moral and people feel it was moral then it is moral... especially if China is the world power and people think that is a good thing.
                            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Imran - My comment about moral relativism was meant for static and his comment about stability justifying the immorality of playing 2 sides off against each other, but if you want to wear the label too, that's fine.

                              I might not like it, but when I feel doesn't matter. If the future says it was moral and people feel it was moral then it is moral... especially if China is the world power and people think that is a good thing.
                              Why is your opinion about the immorality of that situation irrelevant while the opinions of others are relevant? I certainly wouldn't ask the invaders and Chinese if they considered their actions moral. If they turned my homeland into a warzone for their own globalist motives, I wouldn't look upon them as moral agents.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X