Did we score a victory?

[yavoon]

yah we have never ever meddled in arab-arab conflicts. cuz like they aren't our business. like we had no position on iraq-iran war. we just stayed out of that. oh and the afghanistan thing, not us dawg.

I think its pretty obvious that if u listened to that quote and invaded and occupied a country based on it. well I don't know if there's a word good enuff for how low ur IQ would have to be.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by yavoon
cuz we supported him to stalemate iran. my point is he wasn't given assurances that he could occupy kuwait.

Saddam didn't know we were also playing Iran against him. For all he knew, we were supporting in the hopes that he would drive out the Ayatollah like we claimed we wanted. Remember we were quite chummy-chummy with Iraq back then.

u repeat ur crap just as much as me. so dont point fingers.

The difference is I am disagreeing with you without calling your statements "crap."

its not that we liked saddam nemore than we liked the freedom fighters in afghanistan. we were just picking sides of convenience, its not like "we had saddams back."

Again, Saddam didn't necessarily have any reason to believe this. In his view, the thread of fundamentalist Iran was what was of most concern to the U.S., and he was the friend of the U.S. because he opposed it. Surely, if Kuwait was stealing his oil and refusing to stop, his friend the U.S. wouldn't mind him making his point by force?

so I don't think he was so stupid that when it becomes abhorently against our interests to let him do something that we'll let it slide just cuz u know, we friends dawg.

I don't think Hussein felt U.S. interests were that critical over Kuwait. Remember that he is an egomaniac, so U.S. approval in the past likely had convinced him that the most important thing was that he was there to keep Iran in check and be the bastion of secular government in an increasingly fundamentalist ME.

[Guynemer]

If we're going to war to improve the status of women, shouldn't we start by going to a country where girls are forced back into a burning building because their faces became uncovered in their escape--like Saudi Arabia--as opposed to Iraq, where women can walk alone, head uncovered, go to work, go to coed colleges, and generally have more rights than in other nations in the region?

Just throwing that out there, silly question, I know.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Sadam has invaded two countries in his reign. Are you supposing he just wants them to have them and not to use them?

As we learned in the thread started by the rather conservative DinoDoc, Iran started things with Iraq by sending guerillas into Iraq's south and assassintng Iraqi officials, etc. Next, as Boris just pointed out, Iraq asked the US if they could invade Kuwait, and got an answer that sure seems like "yes."

Granted, the US wasn't thinking that Iraq would take the whole thing, but the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil and deliberately overproducing oil, which was driving down oil prices, which hurt Iraq's economy, at the same time that they were screwing Iraq on war loans they had made. Considering that if Iraq had fallen to Iran, that Kuwait would have been next, Iraq was pretty justified in being furious with Kuwait. Does that justify an invasion, no? But to pretend that Hussein is some wannabe world conqueror is just ignoring the historical facts.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


For an Iraqi dictator fishing for assurances of there being no U.S. repercussions, I can't see how Hussein could have been any less delighted with such a statement.

That the statement did or didn't have approval from Washington I don't know...nor will we ever know.

So we had a dictator "fishing for assurances" and the US is somehow responsible for his 2nd invasion of a foriegn country?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


lcweb2.loc.gov

Library of Congress data.

You are correct in your statement that his 1st invasion of a foriegn country (1 year after taking power) started the colapse of the Iraqi economy.

An invasion formented by the U.S. And the collapse of global oil prices hurt Iraq immensely, since it was a one-product economy (well before Hussein took control). That economic disaster was hardly his doing.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Does that make GWB into an honest person who tells nothing but the truth? How?

What I am saying is that the delay is because Chirac apparently is listening to the heavy criticism out of Britain and has softened his stance on a new resolution. This is why there is a delay. It has nothing to do with Bush, except that Bush, like Blair, is willing to go the extra mile to reach consensus in the UN.

[chequita guevara]

Anyway, enough of this threadjack. This isn't about Iraq, this is about stopping the war!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


So we had a dictator "fishing for assurances" and the US is somehow responsible for his 2nd invasion of a foriegn country?

I did not say were responsible, merely that we have no right to be so outraged and shocked over something we knew Saddam was planning and then said "Well, we won't stop you."

[yavoon]

ok to clarify for everyone about the woman's rights thing.

it is not saying "bush should invade iraq or ne place else cuz of how woman have it."

it is saying tho that the feminist protests of a possible overthrow of a long hated dictator in a region that could bring about greatly increased womans rights is at the very least short sighted.

I mean surely they can be against that method, but the real fact is they are a very inept group, and now something comes along that by pure coincidence could help them greatly. and they go into knee jerk liberal reaction mode.

[chequita guevara]

Ned, on ABC's World News Tonight they made the statement that Bush is backing off his demand for a UN vote this week as well as the March 17ty deadline because Blair told him that if Bush went ahead unilaterally it would bring down his government.




and CBEAST!

[Boris Godunov]

If a feminist--or anyone--opposes aggressive wars out of principle, especially ones where no adequate casus belli is readily apparent, it makes little sense to support one to support a particular agenda.

For instance, I abhor the treatment of gays in Saudi Arabia. It's probably among the most barbaric treatment of human beings in the world.

I don't, however, support invading SA and installing our regime. I'd rather us withdraw our troops, slap them with sanctions a la South Africa and try to bring about a peaceful change in their ways.

We have, however, no right to invade a nation unless they are threatening us or our allies directly.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


An invasion formented by the U.S. And the collapse of global oil prices hurt Iraq immensely, since it was a one-product economy (well before Hussein took control). That economic disaster was hardly his doing.

Boris! Even after the war the data that I posted shows you that he was only able to create a 1.7% increase in the reduced level of GNP even after the war. And this with what may be the most valuable commodity in the world! The man just can't manage an economy. Even now, the revenue he gets does not go to improving the economy. It goes to increase his personal luxury!

Surely it is easy to infer that a western led rebuilding of Iraq's economy will help them regain the type of standard of living they had pre-1980.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara It demanded that Hussein admit that he has bio/chem weapons (which has yet to be proven, even if it is probably true) and that he declare his UAVs, even if they aren't covered by the UNSC resolution. #1 is the clincher though, as it guarantees war, since there's no way Hussein will ever admit it.

Che even Chirac won't try to say Iraq doesn't have WoMD. Chirac avoids talking about Iraq possessing WoMD like the plague because he knows they have them he just doesn't think it is in France's interests to see Saddam disarmed; at least not militarially disarmed. He'd much rather keep getting contracts from a Saddam which is pissed off with the U.S./U.K. and pretend there is no problem. That Saddam has a WoMD program is as clear and as certain as the sun rising tommorrow.

Blair proposal is very fair. It calls off the war if Saddam promises to do six things proven he will reform and cease hording WoMD. It will totally binds the U.S. & U.K. to not attacking Iraq if Saddam does six easy steps which would prove his desire to disarm. It is as level headed an offer as any which has ever been made but Saddam won't take it because Saddam has been convinced, if Iraqi news releases are any clue, that the west is so divided they will never force him to disarm.

That is the downside to anti-Bushism.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

We have, however, no right to invade a nation unless they are threatening us or our allies directly.

This is not unreasonable. What would you define as a threat?