How do you feel about the future of US?

[Arraya]

[quote=felix]I guess this would be an issue if we actually did start costly new wars.

I can only assume you are referring to Iraq which was actually a war started in 1990 by Saddam’s incursion into Kuwait. That war was never ended.

It was in a cease fire and the conditions of that cease fire were repeatedly violated by Saddam. Saddam had longer range missiles than allowed, he violated no-fly zones, he interfered with and tossed out inspectors. And most importantly he never demonstrated to the UN that he destroyed WMD. That was his responsibility.

I also hope you are aware that it costs three times as much to supply a soldier in Afghanistan than Iraq due to it being land locked. And I hope you don’t think it cost nothing to patrol and hem in Saddam forever.

Our priorities of keeping our citizens and allies safe wasn’t screwed up. That should be our first priority imo.[/quote]

Saddam was a good friend to the US and an asset. We sold him many WMDs to keep Iran at bay after Reagan’s election and most of his butchery was done with US consent. He became the enemy because of his dollar and oil policy. Basically, he became defiant. It is publicly known that Saddam received an tacit Ok from a US to invade Kuwait.

On July 25, 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq,

Basically, they duped him into thinking it was ok to invade. He sure as hell did have a valid beef with kuwait if you look at the issues. My thinking is we probably worked kuwait to provoke him on the other side. Otherwise, they would have resolved the issue another way.

We thought destroying his military would make him more subservient but only worked in reverse. We tried reason and probably assassinate him during the 90s with no luck. The next move was military. This was decided by the late 90s that he would have to be taken out.

WMDs were never the real reason for the invasion, because lots of “enemy” countries have them. It was a side issue, the US intelligence community was split on and were definitely not sure of it, but uniformly agreed that he was not a threat to the US as far as violence, bombs or terrorism is concerned, only in an economic sense was he a threat. Which is a little complicated to explain to the public. Actually, Colin Powell in early 2000 described him as a mean junk yard dog with no teeth, living paranoid in underground bunkers. Which is a pretty damn good analogy.

Today, Iraq has become the center of the oil exploration world today. It’s widely known in oil circles that Iraq “could” be another Saudi Arabia and the only major oil producing region left in the world that could significantly and easily raise their production levels. This was not a surprise and is central to economic health of a growth based system.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[felix]

I’m not sure what is the point of your reply. Anyway some of what you wrote I agree with and some I don’t. I don’t think Saddam was ever a good friend to the US. Our relationship with him was a marriage of convenience, imo, on both sides. I don’t think he cared much for us either.

I disagree that Saddam was given our okay to invade one of our allies, Kuwait. We have had very good relations with Kuwait. They continue to this day. He made a huge mistake thinking we wouldn’t care.

I do believe though that some poorly conveyed messages may had given him room to assert the misguided belief that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait. Again he was wrong.

Even if one believes we give him the okay, it was clear shortly after his invasion of Kuwait that we did care. And he was given ample time to withdraw from Kuwait without any military action being taken against him. He decided to remain. Again a big mistake on his part.

I agree that WMDs were not the reason for the resumption of military action. The whereabouts of WMDs though were part of the reason. Certainly we and many others believed he still had chemical weapons. Afterall we did provide our soldiers with gear to protect them as best we could. Why would we bother if we knew he didn’t have chemicals?

Anyway as I said, the proof of destruction of WMDs was Saddam’s responsibility and he threw inspectors out. That again was a bad decision on his part.

I also do agree that Saddam’s fortune or misfortune to be sitting upon some of the world’s largest oil reserves played a huge part in why this war was fought and for good reason. Oil is a strategic asset necessary for the world’s and our economies to function.

This guy just would not play nice with his neighbors and/or countrymen. He couldn’t just sit back and count his money and help his people. He wanted more.

That is why he fought a long devastating war with Iran. That is why he invaded Kuwait. That is why he chose poorly in not responding to the world’s demand that he leave Kuwait and letting the inspectors do their jobs.

He is dead. His son’s are dead. I think it is clear he (and we)would have been better off if he just left Kuwait when asked by the world.

Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.

[briansd1]

[quote=MicroGravity]
Think so? The US has the privilege of issuing debt in their own currency, they can always print more money. Wars are a great way to stimulate the economy now, at the expense of your grandkid’s future–all while distracting the dumb masses.[/quote]

Good point. For now, printing money is a good way to jump-start the economy.

But like you said, future generations will pay the price.

[briansd1]

[quote=MicroGravity]
Think so? The US has the privilege of issuing debt in their own currency, they can always print more money. Wars are a great way to stimulate the economy now, at the expense of your grandkid’s future–all while distracting the dumb masses.[/quote]

Good point. For now, printing money is a good way to jump-start the economy.

But like you said, future generations will pay the price.

[briansd1]

[quote=MicroGravity]
Think so? The US has the privilege of issuing debt in their own currency, they can always print more money. Wars are a great way to stimulate the economy now, at the expense of your grandkid’s future–all while distracting the dumb masses.[/quote]

Good point. For now, printing money is a good way to jump-start the economy.

But like you said, future generations will pay the price.

[briansd1]

[quote=MicroGravity]
Think so? The US has the privilege of issuing debt in their own currency, they can always print more money. Wars are a great way to stimulate the economy now, at the expense of your grandkid’s future–all while distracting the dumb masses.[/quote]

Good point. For now, printing money is a good way to jump-start the economy.

But like you said, future generations will pay the price.

[briansd1]

[quote=MicroGravity]
Think so? The US has the privilege of issuing debt in their own currency, they can always print more money. Wars are a great way to stimulate the economy now, at the expense of your grandkid’s future–all while distracting the dumb masses.[/quote]

Good point. For now, printing money is a good way to jump-start the economy.

But like you said, future generations will pay the price.

[briansd1]

[quote=felix]
Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.[/quote]

I don’t agree with you.

But what does it matter who started what?

I thought America was all about taking the moral high-ground?

We just need to do the right thing for our country. The money spent on the military industrial complex would have been better spent elsewhere.

[briansd1]

[quote=felix]
Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.[/quote]

I don’t agree with you.

But what does it matter who started what?

I thought America was all about taking the moral high-ground?

We just need to do the right thing for our country. The money spent on the military industrial complex would have been better spent elsewhere.

[briansd1]

[quote=felix]
Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.[/quote]

I don’t agree with you.

But what does it matter who started what?

I thought America was all about taking the moral high-ground?

We just need to do the right thing for our country. The money spent on the military industrial complex would have been better spent elsewhere.

[briansd1]

[quote=felix]
Again we didn’t choose this war. Saddam did.[/quote]

I don’t agree with you.

But what does it matter who started what?

I thought America was all about taking the moral high-ground?

We just need to do the right thing for our country. The money spent on the military industrial complex would have been better spent elsewhere.

[Author]

Posts