Obama: Bush Senior “did an excellent job when it came to the Gulf War"

RolandTD20Kdrummer

my2hands wrote:

thats flat out horseshit

Really? Have you looked through this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#Meetings_with_Saddam_Hussein

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

deadmosquito wrote:

seriously, what is with the hate for america? i am a liberal and i am so flabbergasted by the way lmany other iberals treat our nation.

I'm pretty liberal myself, but some geniuses around here like to spew so much hate it makes me look more centrist than i am. My favorite is when they get mad and call me a FOXnews O'reilly watching sheep. It never fails. if they knew me they would know thats so far from the truth.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

El_Kabong wrote:

"There is no way to peace, peace is the way."
- Gandhi

Ghandi was a man (in a certain situation in a certain time), not a god some of you make him out to be.

you think his tactics would have worked in Nazi Germany ? How did it work out in Bhurma, or Tianenmen Square? you are delirious.
Ghandi's 'weapon' is functional only against CONSCIENCE. If your oppressor has no conscience, nonviolent protest is virtually useless. There was no strong desire to hold on to India by the time Ghandi came around (due in no small part to various VIOLENT revolts, sabotage and terrorist attacks). The Indian colony simply wasnt "economically feasible".


so fuck Ghandi

Drowned Out

my2hands wrote:

the idea that the first gulf war was a conspiracy to weaken saddam and iraq and keep them that way for years until we decided to take him out is bullshit

we could have taken him out in 1991 when we had overwhelming national and world support to do so.

why would they wait? why take that chance? why wait for a future justification?

Overwhelming support? They were there to remove them from Kuwait….as Roland said earlier, public and world opinion would not have allowed them to continue into Baghdad after the highway of death turned that opinion firmly against taking the offensive. It took another ten years for your government to get brazen enough to start the ‘regime change’ bullshit and stop caring completely about popular opinion.

my2hands wrote:

and if the CIA and the shadows of the US government are all controlling and dictate every world event, then how the hell did the former head of the CIA lose the election in 1992?

from what I can see…you are the one bringing up shadow governments. Can I call you a tinfoil hatter for towing the line that there was a military buildup on the Saudi boarder? Or because you’re ignoring the ‘conspiracy’ of a 15 yr old (daughter of the Kuwaiti embassador to the US) telling lies about Iraqi atrocities…and the fact that it was all over the media, and quoted in congress (and the UN?) multiple times while building support for the war. There is no shadow government, just shadow agendas. If you take all US foreign actions at face value, I don’t know what more to say…
To imply that Clinton being elected would have screwed up US foreign policy objectives in the middle east is no different than saying Obama will change the current situation. Clinton and Bush Sr. do speaking engagements together ffs….there are no major FP differences between the parties, then or now….

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Drowned Out wrote:

Overwhelming support? They were there to remove them from Kuwait….as Roland said earlier, public and world opinion would not have allowed them to continue into Baghdad after the highway of death turned that opinion firmly against taking the offensive. It took another ten years for your government to get brazen enough to start the ‘regime change’ bullshit and stop caring completely about popular opinion.

.

what kind of revisionist history is this? no one would have cared if we rolled right on in to Baghdad. Indeed, most people thought we should have.

El_Kabong

my2hands wrote:

i agree...

but that never stopped a fucking tank :rolleyes:


sometimes people MUST stand up and fight.

the us could've easily have stopped the invasion of kuwait but did nothing b/c it gave them reason in a post-cold war era to increase the defense budget

El_Kabong

my2hands wrote:

the idea that the first gulf war was a conspiracy to weaken saddam and iraq and keep them that way for years until we decided to take him out is bullshit

we could have taken him out in 1991 when we had overwhelming national and world support to do so.

why would they wait? why take that chance? why wait for a future justification?



and if the CIA and the shadows of the US government are all controlling and dictate every world event, then how the hell did the former head of the CIA lose the election in 1992?

no, it wasn't a future plan, they thought it would cost too many lives and money to invade baghdad...it was all about having an enemy to justify increasing the defense budget which was slashed due to the cold war being over

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Really? Have you looked through this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#Meetings_with_Saddam_Hussein

wait wait wait... your whole argument is based solely on the fact that the ambassador basically said "we dont care about your petty squabbles" to Saddam? How in Gods name do you make the leap to say we were actively promoting Iraq invading Kuwait? IN WHAT WORLD IS THIS THE NEXT LOGICAL LEAP? How much conditioning does it require for this to make sense?

So you want me to believe Saddam had no idea anyone would notice invading Kuwait and moving on to Saudi Arabia, which collectivelly account for a massive percentage of the world's oil? Are you trying to convince me that because we said once that we didnt want to get involved, he would naturally assume no one would care about this? And you also expect me to believe that he wouldnt scream bloody murder about the US saying it was ok once we supposedly turn on him?

i think i like it better when you are posting links about ties between Columbine and Israel. That makes more sense than this shit.

El_Kabong

El_Kabong wrote:

but they could've stopped the war before it ever started!

things to keep in mind to put it in a better context:

-kuwait had been stealin oil from iraq as well as violating opec quotas. iraq went to their friends, the US, who told them we "do not wish to get involved in arab-arab affairs."

-Amnesty International and other groups had issued reports on human rights abuses of Iraq but Bush didn't care.

-w/ the cold war being over the defense budget was slashed, upsetting a certain sector who they are all pretty much working in now

-iraq starts a troop buildup on the border and congress asks the state dept in to answer some questions about our allies, iraq...asked if we would be committed to action if anything happens the answer is 'of course not'

-nothing is done and the next day iraq invades

-the AI and other reports are suddenly treated like scripture to help prove the justifications for action

-defense budget blows up as does war spending



also bear in mind we had told the iraqis we would support them if they rose up against saddam...which they did and we did nothing while they were massacred

^^^^^^
the reality of it

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

nevermind i quit. Its our fault because we didnt threaten war before anything happened. We did the pacifist thing and it was wrong. we should have rattled those sabres!!!

we are so evil

El_Kabong

MrSmith wrote:

nevermind i quit. Its our fault because we didnt threaten war before anything happened. We did the pacifist thing and it was wrong. we should have rattled those sabres!!!

we are so evil

yeah, i guess talking to our ally at the time instead of telling them we didn't wish to get involved or we had no obligation to do anything is unheard of...?

the pacifist thing isn't to just stand by and wait for it to happen, the pacifist thing would've been diplomacy. not saber rattling or threats

we knew they were gonna invade and just sat and waited for it to happen

if i know a little girl is about to be kidnapped and murdered and i do nothing how is that the 'pacifist thing to do'??? especially when i use her kidnapping/murder to get an increased defense budget

El_Kabong

MrSmith wrote:

wait wait wait... your whole argument is based solely on the fact that the ambassador basically said "we dont care about your petty squabbles" to Saddam? How in Gods name do you make the leap to say we were actively promoting Iraq invading Kuwait? IN WHAT WORLD IS THIS THE NEXT LOGICAL LEAP? How much conditioning does it require for this to make sense?

So you want me to believe Saddam had no idea anyone would notice invading Kuwait and moving on to Saudi Arabia, which collectivelly account for a massive percentage of the world's oil? Are you trying to convince me that because we said once that we didnt want to get involved, he would naturally assume no one would care about this? And you also expect me to believe that he wouldnt scream bloody murder about the US saying it was ok once we supposedly turn on him?

i think i like it better when you are posting links about ties between Columbine and Israel. That makes more sense than this shit.

are we saying it while they have troops building up on the border???

if we saw an ally building troops up on israel's border would we just wait for it to happen or would we try to talk to them before? what do you think the responsible thing to do would be?

congress obviously knew what was gonna happen that they asked the state dept about it

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

the us could've easily have stopped the invasion of kuwait

how is that exactly? ask iraq nicely?

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

no, it wasn't a future plan, they thought it would cost too many lives and money to invade baghdad

thank you, thats what i have been saying. thats why i like you kabong. at least your arguments are actually rooted in some type of fatcs, not conspiracy spin

....it was all about having an enemy to justify increasing the defense budget which was slashed due to the cold war being over

so you believe saddam was "played" or "green lit" to invade Kuwait so we could expand the defense budget?

my2hands

MrSmith wrote:

i think i like it better when you are posting links about ties between Columbine and Israel. That makes more sense than this shit.

what a major ding that was on my boy rolands cred, man did he stretch with that nonsense...


if you ask him the whole world is run by a zionist plot to dominate the globe and everything that happens in the world is connected to that agenda and zionist manipulation :rolleyes:

my2hands

why would the US government set up and "play" their own puppet? he was neatly tucked in our back pocket, why would we disrupt or risk that?

purely for an increase in defense spending?


i see that as a HUGE stretch, to say the least.

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

why would the US government set up and "play" their own puppet? he was neatly tucked in our back pocket, why would we disrupt or risk that?

purely for an increase in defense spending?


i see that as a HUGE stretch, to say the least.

That Chomsky piece I posted laid it out pretty clearly I thought.

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

what a major ding that was on my boy rolands cred, man did he stretch with that nonsense...


if you ask him the whole world is run by a zionist plot to dominate the globe and everything that happens in the world is connected to that agenda and zionist manipulation :rolleyes:

Lots of people's cred around here seems to be slipping if you ask me. It all depends on your perspective, I suppose.

Why don't we stay on topic instead of attacking someone else's character?

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why don't we stay on topic instead of attacking someone else's character?

Because ego is the chosen way of the land, apparently. It's what people accept for themselves, and subsequently what they know.
:(

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Published in the December 2001 issue of The Progressive
A Just Cause, Not a Just War
by Howard Zinn

There are unjust causes, such as the attempt of the United States to establish its power in Vietnam, or to dominate Panama or Grenada, or to subvert the government of Nicaragua. And a cause may be just--getting North Korea to withdraw from South Korea, getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait, or ending terrorism--but it does not follow that going to war on behalf of that cause, with the inevitable mayhem that follows, is just.

thank you for helping make my point with the help of Mr Zinn...

even he says the cause of getting Iraq to withdraw from kuwait was could be considered "just". he follows that by saying perhaps war as a means to get them to withdraw is unjust. which of course no one cheers on war or thinks thats the only answer, especially not me.

my question to Zinn, and the others in this thread the past 2 days has been the same. how do you get Iraq to withdraw from kuwait? sanctions via the UN were put in place, diplomacy via the UN took place, a threat of war was put in place via the UN, and none of that worked. they were given ample time to withdraw under pressure form the world. so how do you get them to withdraw without using force?