At first I was like:



But then I was like:

There was nothing in that article about any alliance with the US, so it looks to me like the person lying here is the person who linked the article.

Gyrfalcon: inconnu: Boo farking hoo.

Saddam would never have been any kind of a remotely reputable ally. Unless you were Russia or France.

This kind of journalism is irresponsible at best.

Except when he was our reputable ally during the Iran-Iraq war, and our forward base for a lot of the covert ops in Afghanistan. But no, he wouldn't have been a very reputable ally any other time.

Abort Retry Fail. Iraq shares no border with Afghanistan (in fact has a rather hostile to us country between them) and thus would make a poor "forward" base. I do believe that you are thinking of Pakistan, but are too afflicted with the WHARRGARBL to actually use your brain for something other than keeping your head inflated.

Lehk: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

WMD is a completely bullshiat term.

the ONLY purpose of it is to help conflate simple chemical weapons with nukes and z-virus in the public debate.

"Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man."

So I guess a knife can be a WMD too.

As long as it's a kut'luch.

...and would have formed an alliance with the US

After Saddam switched from trading oil for Euros instead of US dollars? There's no way the overclass in the US would ally with someone who did that.

Hussein didn't make anything up.
It was the US 'intelligence' with all their drawings of rail cars that allowed the moving around of weapons that didn't exist.
It was payback by Bush for Hussein's attempt at killing his daddy.

Where are the WMD's?
It's been 6 farking years already.
That's right, there weren't any.

Gen. Apathy:

The entire term "WMD" is bullshiat used to scare everyone. That way they could lump chemical and biological weapons in with nuclear weapons to make them seem just as sinister.

But they is no comparison. Nuclear weapons are on an entirely different level.


sorry folks. wasn't paying attention...

One more thing. If the US had dropped chemical or biological weapons on Hiroshima or Nagasaki do you think it would have had the same impact? Why all the fear of nuclear annihilation during the cold war? I remember growing up thinking the world could end at any moment (those of us old enough to remember the nuclear stalemate between the USSR and the USA), I am sure there are Europeans that remember the thought of Europe becoming the nuclear battlefield. We weren't concerned with chemical or biological attacks, it was nuclear war that terrified us.

Granted, biological weapons could conceivably be horrific, but I have only read about the death of all humanity from bio-weapons in sci-fi books. But I am sure most of us can easily imagine a nuclear war annihilating everyone. We don't say "glass parking lot" for nothing.

The term WMD is bullshiat. Bio and chem weapons do not cause mass destruction on a scale comparable to nuclear. I have no doubt that the USA has more of bio, chem and nuclear weapons than all these "bad guys" we go after. What does that make us? It's like a cop telling me "you can't be armed citizen, only I can because I'm the good guy". Yeah right.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

The shelf life of this stuff is kind of short. Short enough that Iraq would have had to kept manufacturing these agents post gulf war, when the United States and Great Britain were bombing them at least once a week. This is why that entire bullshiat story about the moving manufacturing trucks was made up. If he had build a factory that was capable of making the stuff, we would have seen it from the air and blown it apart. They only way he could have anything that was dangerous if he were crafty and put it in moving vehicles.

Problem is, other than the fact that it was made up bullshiat, the embargo on Iraq was successful and our intelligence agencies knew it. There really was no way for Iraq to keep making any WMD of any kind. Just ask ANYONE in the administration before the Sept 11 attacks if Iraq had WMDs, like the media did, and they will tell you the truth. Iraq had no WMDs. It was only after the Sept 11th attacks that Iraq suddenly had them.

All this stuff is documented. The Bush administration lied to the public. It did so to test a political theory written by members of his administration that once democracy takes hold in the middle east, the long term threat of the Islamists will diminish and it used the Sept 11th attacks as an excuse to do so.

All this was done at the cost of prolonging the war in Afganistan, letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda escape over the mountains into Pakistan, a few thousand US lives and an unknown amount Iraqi lives.

We sure freed the hell out of them.

Then why is the US Army still destroying the stuff from WWI just up the road from me in Aberdeen?

rurdy: Renowned transvestite sexologist: OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

The shelf life of this stuff is kind of short. Short enough that Iraq would have had to kept manufacturing these agents post gulf war, when the United States and Great Britain were bombing them at least once a week. This is why that entire bullshiat story about the moving manufacturing trucks was made up. If he had build a factory that was capable of making the stuff, we would have seen it from the air and blown it apart. They only way he could have anything that was dangerous if he were crafty and put it in moving vehicles.

Problem is, other than the fact that it was made up bullshiat, the embargo on Iraq was successful and our intelligence agencies knew it. There really was no way for Iraq to keep making any WMD of any kind. Just ask ANYONE in the administration before the Sept 11 attacks if Iraq had WMDs, like the media did, and they will tell you the truth. Iraq had no WMDs. It was only after the Sept 11th attacks that Iraq suddenly had them.

All this stuff is documented. The Bush administration lied to the public. It did so to test a political theory written by members of his administration that once democracy takes hold in the middle east, the long term threat of the Islamists will diminish and it used the Sept 11th attacks as an excuse to do so.

All this was done at the cost of prolonging the war in Afganistan, letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda escape over the mountains into Pakistan, a few thousand US lives and an unknown amount Iraqi lives.

We sure freed the hell out of them.

Then why is the US Army still destroying the stuff from WWI just up the road from me in Aberdeen?

some are more stable. I think reknowned meant the effective shelf life, as some agents degrade quickly but remain toxic, just not as potent.

ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

I personally beg to differ.
I think personally it was worth everything in the long run.

The only thing that is important and relevant to me is that because of George Bush and his cronies, thousands of American families lost a dad, mom, brother or sister for a political purpose that was not compelling or worthy.

It sickens me to think of all the wonderful Americans who threw their lives away or who were seriously wounded because they didn't question their patriotic duties even when a cadre of immoral political hacks utterly abused their authority and took advantage of our soldiers' honor to send them to their deaths in a cause that was not justified.

So people are still blaming Bush even after Sadam (and this is old news by the way) admits that he was actively trying to convince us that he had WMD's; amazing. So Sadam was bluffing, everyone's intelligence comes back with mixed information (because it was a bluff), Bush er's on the side of caution with foresight to the future and he's the evil idiot?

Hussein noted that Iran's weapons capabilities had increased dramatically while Iraq's weapons "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions," and that eventually Iraq would have to reconstitute its weapons to deal with that threat if it could not reach a security agreement with the United States.

It's hard to ignore that he also said "Yes we would have had them too." or did you think we'd welcome him with open arms as a friend all things considered? Or perhaps you think things would be much better in the region with a nuclear arms racing going on betwixt Iraq and Iran while we try to push the Taliban out of Afghanistan? Or could it be that an American invasion of Afghanistan would be what it took to get Iraq and Iran to work together against a common enemy? Would Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians and other reformers of Middle Eastern countries be wondering "Why not us?" if Iraq had not had open and publicized free elections? Or do you think the Iranian dissenters would have been enough? Would the Iranians have dissented knowing that Sadam was still in power unopposed next door? That would have provided a much better boogey man for the Regime to point at for stability.

It's real easy to sit back and cast stones at Bush simply because we didn't find WMD's that everyone and their brother thought might be there, but it's a short sighted person who does so.

Given the information at the time and all the variables, enforcing the cease fire agreement in Iraq was a good decision. Not having enough boots on the ground to do it right for fear of "angering the Arab Street" was a poor decision.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds.

Well, but so did the Brits.

Deacon Blue: Ed Grubermann: Deacon Blue: Just to play devil's advocate, we now have a permanent military presence in the Middle East, with troops in both Iraq and Afganistan. How that's going to work out in the long run, I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet that was one of the major goals in the beginning.

Really? No shiat? You figure that out on your own? Yes, that was the entire point.

I also have this idea about how we support Israel in order to influence events in that region. Seriously, I just didn't see where someone else had pointed the 'American troops now permanently stationed in the Middle East' thing.

On a seperate note, I'm always surprised by people who think real-world international politics are carried out with anything but the most cursory of nods towards morality, and that only for the sake of public consumption. World leaders are influenced by Machiavelli more that by God, Jesus, Buddah, or Mohammad. I'm not sure you could successfully run a country using truly humanitarian principles.


Approves.
/hot like iraq
//i wrote this post a long time ago
///a long long time ago

themeaningoflifeisnot: The only thing that is important and relevant to me is that because of George Bush and his cronies, thousands of American families lost a dad, mom, brother or sister for a political purpose that was not compelling or worthy.

So you don't think lancing the boil that was the Middle East with a long term eye for peace and democratization in the area, isn't a worthy enough cause? More people were murdered in Chicago alone than died in Iraq during the year of 2008.

Link (new window)

I'd say our soldiers who payed the ultimate price died for a much better reason than the people in Chicago who bought it, don't you think? So which would be a better focus of your energy? Trying to stop the process of allowing Iraqi's their chance at self-determination or trying to stop the crime spree in Chicago?

LavenderWolf: You're an idiot. I was going off on HIM for getting stuck up about it being my opinion.

My apologies. But I prefer the term "mean drunk".

Chemical weapons count as weapons of mass destruction because, regardless of actual property damage, they can kill a large amount of people indiscriminately. And killing people counts as "destruction" of human life. THAT is what I thought you were challenging.

How do we know he had chemical weapons? We sold them to him.

In case you are confused by this, it makes us the bad guys.

Yes. America. The USA. The bad guys. Starters of shiate in the middle east. Dealers in death, causers of wars, the aggressors, the oil and money whores. You read it here first. We kill people for money.

Koryovov : Actually, no. What chemical, nuclear and biological weapons have in common with each other (but not, say, 122mm HE or 5.45x39) is that they're all indiscriminate, very difficult to control in terms of area affected, and potentially dangerous for non-trivial time

So, lobbing mortar shells at populated areas isn't indiscriminate ?

But don't worry, history has shown middle eastern peoples don't hold grudges. Your grandchildren have nothing to fear.





I mean, what's 91,000 dead between friends? Their families will GET OVER IT. Just like Americans do.

Canis Noir : Trying to stop the process of allowing Iraqi's their chance at self-determination or trying to stop the crime spree in Chicago?

Right. Just like the US's deep concern for the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who enjoy American support for their despotic regimes.

We are at war with EastasiaIraq, we have always been at war with EurasiaIran.

Saddam didn't have anything to do with Curveball,Chalabi, The Office of Special Plans,Forged Niger documents,forcing DoE out of the meetings about the "aluminum tubes" and all the other machinations that took place to facilitate and perpetrate a fraud upon the congress and the American people.

Doug Feith created fake entities out of thin air to try to link Saddam and bin Laden. They lied about meetings that never took place but were told so by people who were known liars and people who had a motivation to lie. This was a railroading to war.

jakomo002: Right. Just like the US's deep concern for the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who enjoy American support for their despotic regimes.



Because the same solution will solve a problem everywhere and priorities are for idiots right? Bush didn't believe you needed to invade every middle eastern country to promote freedom there, Iran is a perfect example; we kept the black market of western luxuries alive there and we are seeing the fruits of those efforts right now.

People always ask "Well what about [insert country here]?" and the answer is obvious. Looking out for your own self interest is not a bad thing and in order to do this you need to prioritize what you do.

Hell, the way to look at this was they were counting on getting the most bang for the buck; use military force in two countries and cause reform all over the region.

CanisNoir: jakomo002: Right. Just like the US's deep concern for the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who enjoy American support for their despotic regimes.



Because the same solution will solve a problem everywhere and priorities are for idiots right? Bush didn't believe you needed to invade every middle eastern country to promote freedom there, Iran is a perfect example; we kept the black market of western luxuries alive there and we are seeing the fruits of those efforts right now.

People always ask "Well what about [insert country here]?" and the answer is obvious. Looking out for your own self interest is not a bad thing and in order to do this you need to prioritize what you do.

Hell, the way to look at this was they were counting on getting the most bang for the buck; use military force in two countries and cause reform all over the region.

How was invading Iraq in our own self interest? I get your point, i just don't think it applies here. I think liberating Afghanistan (and doing it right) would have done wonders for the region. The Iraq situation may still work out for Iraq, but it's helped to solidify a lot of hatred towards us, which is what we should be trying to undo over there.

I don't think you're wrong in theory, i just don't think Iraq fits in the theory.

OgreMagi: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Gas is a WMD. He didn't just farking make it up.

This was also before the first Gulf War, after that war Saddam was supposed to give up his WMD after getting a strongly worded letter, which he apparently did.

CanisNoir: themeaningoflifeisnot: The only thing that is important and relevant to me is that because of George Bush and his cronies, thousands of American families lost a dad, mom, brother or sister for a political purpose that was not compelling or worthy.

So you don't think lancing the boil that was the Middle East with a long term eye for peace and democratization in the area, isn't a worthy enough cause? More people were murdered in Chicago alone than died in Iraq during the year of 2008.

Link (new window)

I'd say our soldiers who payed the ultimate price died for a much better reason than the people in Chicago who bought it, don't you think? So which would be a better focus of your energy? Trying to stop the process of allowing Iraqi's their chance at self-determination or trying to stop the crime spree in Chicago?

Are you kidding me? "lancing the boil that was the Middle East with a long term eye for peace and democratization in the area?" What f*cking planet are you on? The odds of that happening at American behest are worse than those of Powerball.

You're just spewing the mantra of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century. And the point of spending American lives to bring "democracy" to other countries was not, ultimately, out of concern for the welfare of the citizens of those countries. Bringing forth "democracy" for the neo-cons means establishing political systems with economic goals similar to those of the United States, to draw those new democracies into our economic sphere as potential markets for American goods.

Fark this "spreading democracy" bullshiat. So many people use the term "democracy" as if it has one meaning: what we experience in our republic. But it comes in many forms and degrees, some of which would make the average American sick to see. Just wait a few years and see what "democracy" in Iran looks like when the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds have had it out.

No, my friend, bringing peace and democracy to Iraq was not the true objective of the American traitors who failed to keep faith with our fighting men and women. The true objective was internal expansion of the military-industrial complex and expansion of American foreign economic power. They didn't give a rat's ass for the welfare of the average Iraqi, and they didn't give a rat's ass for the welfare of good, honest Americans who signed up to defend the freedom of America, but not as playthings for neocons and their bullshiat philosophies.

itazurakko: Remember kids, IRAN is the enemy again.


excuse me comrade, but we've always been at war with Iran. this is crimethink!

Strike that "Iran" and substitute "Iraq." That's what I get for not proof-reading.

GAT_00
shivashakti: Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

If we're going to judge the US by local allies, there isn't anything that reflects well on us.


You two might get a kick out of this, especially when he starts talking about Hussein at around 6:00.

shivashakti: Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

Even during the invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was 'our guy'. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was some conversation to a US representative where Saddam said something to the effect of "Kuwaitis are slant-drilling into my oil. Is it cool if I take care of this?" and they gave him the go-ahead not realizing they just greenlit the invasion and attempted annexing of Kuwait.

ragekage: Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit

The U.S. enters into alliances with despots all the time. Or did you think Saudi Arabia was a democracy?

Pxtl: Even during the invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was 'our guy'. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was some conversation to a US representative where Saddam said something to the effect of "Kuwaitis are slant-drilling into my oil. Is it cool if I take care of this?" and they gave him the go-ahead not realizing they just greenlit the invasion and attempted annexing of Kuwait.

This, pretty much.

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader. His nation was not ruled by the laws of Islam, and thus women were free to obtain educations, go to college, own business, etc. Iran, of course, is an Islamic nation, and thus Iraq and Iran had their issues with each other.

Our response was to invade Iraq and install an Islamic government under which women can no longer own businesses or attend school.

America, fark YEAH!

rurdy: Then why is the US Army still destroying the stuff from WWI just up the road from me in Aberdeen?

Just a wild guess, but I imagine there is a century of decay between "still useful as a weapon" and "safe enough to bury in the ground" concentrations.

This is bullshiat and makes no sense. He *had* WMD. Then later when he didn't, he declared loud and clear that he didn't. This is more ass-covering by the intelligence communities for their lies. Sure, like every world leader, he exaggerated his power to scare his neighbors and rivals. But the WMD thing was clear in all cases when he had them, and when he didn't, and Bush knew all of this but attacked anyway because he (and Cheney) wanted to, and misled and lied to get it done. He wanted Saddam dead.

As for an alliance with the U.S., Saddam had that, with Reagan, throughout most of the 1980s, when he was fighting Iran. And he had WMDs at the time.

shivashakti:

Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

And this is why we are hated world-wide. We don't give a shiat about other sovereign nation's rights, only our own interests. We'll turn on you faster than a hooker turns tricks on a Friday night if it suits our short-sighted, short-term goals.

kenposan
shivashakti:

Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

And this is why we are hated world-wide. We don't give a shiat about other sovereign nation's rights, only our own interests. We'll turn on you faster than a hooker turns tricks on a Friday night if it suits our short-sighted, short-term goals.

This is why I consider most Americans to be clueless idiots. He's bad because our former moron president said so. People don't even question the obvious. They just follow along like mindless 4 year old kids are told 'because I said so' when asked why. And living by Walter Reed Medical center, Its a sad note imho opinion when I see these young soldiers and their prosthetic legs and missing limbs, that their sacrifice really wasn't worth it. Nevermind the lives of all those Americans that died invading and suppressing Iraq

kenposan

Actually, it was because Saddam farked up big time. It was not because the US "turns" on it's allies.

Saddam annexed Kuwait. Big no-no in international relations. It unbalances the region and creates a precedent where other nations might start getting expansionist ideas.

For this alone, he needed to be slapped down, big time.

adamgreeney: I don't think you're wrong in theory, i just don't think Iraq fits in the theory.

I would say invading Iraq served our interests in several ways. As it was Sadam was actively trying to make our lives difficult shooting at our aircraft and attempting to assassinate high level US Targets. (People make light of the fact that he a tried to have a former President assassinated and that boggles my mind). We were going into Afghanistan regardless, however we would still have combat forces locked into the Iraq theater to enforce (jokingly) the cease fire agreements and protecting Kuiat, with no change in the Iraqi stance towards us. By invading, sure we didn't have as many troops in Afghanistan as we'd like, but we didn't have to divert a whole hell of a lot either; not to mention we have much more support from NATO in Afghanistan than Iraq. Now that we've invaded, we can indeed start to redeploy those troops to the Afghanistan theater; combat troops that would other wise have been continuing to fly sorties over no fly zone's and protecting a Kuiati border. On top of that we have an Iraq that is self-governed and who's policies will change much more quickly and bloodlessly in the future because of it. (See, if we were a Dictatorship instead of a Democracy, Bush would still be tossing his military hard on all over the world instead of Obama flashing his Vag ;) ). That alone makes for a much more peaceful and workable Iraq.

Okay I rambled I hope I addressed your point as to how it served our interests.

Pxtl: shivashakti: Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

Even during the invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was 'our guy'. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was some conversation to a US representative where Saddam said something to the effect of "Kuwaitis are slant-drilling into my oil. Is it cool if I take care of this?" and they gave him the go-ahead not realizing they just greenlit the invasion and attempted annexing of Kuwait.

That exact situation was where the US said "not our business" and Saddam took that to mean "sure, claim ownership of the country"

Mentat [TotalFark] Quote 2009-07-03 01:12:42 AM
ragekage: *golfclap*

Though I would never have accepted an "alliance" with Saddam Hussein- he was, after all, a despotic farkwit- still, more evidence that it wasn't worth the lives of thousands of some of the most dedicated of our citizens and the trillion and a half dollars we poured into that sand-filled hell hole in the middle east.

In retrospect, it would have made sense. He certainly wouldn't have been the first brutal dictator the neocons had worked with. Hell, they worked with Saddam before. If it was too impalpable to work with him, they could have bought him off. Either way, they would have achieved their original goal of surrounding Iran with US allies. Of course, that type of power diplomacy wouldn't have gotten Bill Kristol's dick hard.

In the 80's Iraq was at war with Iran. He was the lesser of 2 evils at that time. The US saw this as payback for Iran after the hostage crisis of Carter's failed regime.

Saddam had 14 years to comply with UN Sanctions imposed after the First Gulf War; Clinton let Saddam walked all over him during his 8 years in office.

Also, during the Clinton Administration, some of Saddam's Generals, with the aid of the US, planned to stage a coup to overthrow Saddam. The failed June 1996 coup attempt had largely been determined by domestic American political considerations. Like President George HW Bush before him, Clinton and his political handlers were sensitive to public perception in a presidential election year. This shaped both the coup's mission (get Saddam) and its timing (early summer, before the Republicans had nailed down their candidate). Not only was the 1996 plot chiefly a "wag the dog" scenario, but once again, any chance of Iraq disarming under UN supervision had been cynically undermined by the larger US objective of regime change

Source (new window)

The problem with Democrat Politicians in foreign affairs is that they are more concerned with getting elected than national security. FDR was the last great democrat IMHO. This is why I don't see the economy improving until we are in a Presidential election year.

At least neocons are willing to sacrifice popularity to do what they feel is right and good for their country. Sometimes what is popular, is not always what is best.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Strike that "Iran" and substitute "Iraq." That's what I get for not proof-reading.

I do that often so no worries. I disagree with you though. Where you see nothing but a nefarious plot to expand greed, I see something quite different.

I see decades of a failed Middle East Policy by both parties culminating in a major attack by terrorists on the US Mainland causing a major shift in that policy. The belief that a governmental model of Self Determination, since you dislike the term "democracy", is the most freest and therefore best model has always been our policy. We just shifted from attempting to achieve it by passive diplomacy to active engagement.

It was messy and it won't work for every nation in the middle east, but it got the best result in the shortest span of time, in decades.

The critical point is -- you don't EVER EVER EVER let the Pentagon be in charge of foreign policy.

That is not their job. They don't know what they are doing or how to do it. You have a whole other government department called "State". It is THEIR job. They train for it, understand it, spend their lives studying and working on it.

The Pentagon uses military, executive force to defeat and kill enemies. That is what they do.

You wouldn't think you would have to explain this to somebody that a near-plurality of the population put in the White House.

/don't EVER EVER EVER vote for a 3rd party candidate because the mainstream candidate doesn't agree strongly ENOUGH with your opinions.

I am curious how things would be currently in the Middle East if the US hadn't decided to fark with Iran's government.

They had previously gotten rid of the Shah on their own. We removed a democratically elected leader and returned the Shah to power. It was partially because that leader had some communist leanings but more so because they decided the oil in Iran belonged to Iran.

There was so much anger at the US and Khomeni was able to use that anger. The Shah was removed and the new government went from one extreme to the other.

Once that happened, some Iranians (especially women) realized too late what was going on.

If Iran had been allowed to continue on it's own without meddling from the US, would Saddam have ever risen to power?

Yes, Iraq is 'liberated' now but what's going to happen in 10-20 years?

The late Peter Jennings did a great impartial special on what happened with Iran as part of his 'The Century' series. If you can get your hands on it, it is very interesting viewing and might help put things in perspective for many.

Sergeant Pecker's Lonely Hearts Club Gang Bang: Control_this: Iran has rape rooms. Rape rooms, I tell you.

You said rape rooms twice.

that's hot.

Mongo cut wood: In the 80's Iraq was at war with Iran. He was the lesser of 2 evils at that time. The US saw this as payback for Iran after the hostage crisis of Carter's failed regime.

Saddam had 14 years to comply with UN Sanctions imposed after the First Gulf War; Clinton let Saddam walked all over him during his 8 years in office.

"Bombing the hell out of Saddam and getting lambasted as Wagging the Dog" is "letting Saddam walk all over him".

Notice how you single out only the Democratic Party presidents. Know how I know you're a koolaid-drinking sheep?

CanisNoir: adamgreeney: I don't think you're wrong in theory, i just don't think Iraq fits in the theory.

I would say invading Iraq served our interests in several ways. As it was Sadam was actively trying to make our lives difficult shooting at our aircraft and attempting to assassinate high level US Targets. (People make light of the fact that he a tried to have a former President assassinated and that boggles my mind). We were going into Afghanistan regardless, however we would still have combat forces locked into the Iraq theater to enforce (jokingly) the cease fire agreements and protecting Kuiat, with no change in the Iraqi stance towards us. By invading, sure we didn't have as many troops in Afghanistan as we'd like, but we didn't have to divert a whole hell of a lot either; not to mention we have much more support from NATO in Afghanistan than Iraq. Now that we've invaded, we can indeed start to redeploy those troops to the Afghanistan theater; combat troops that would other wise have been continuing to fly sorties over no fly zone's and protecting a Kuiati border. On top of that we have an Iraq that is self-governed and who's policies will change much more quickly and bloodlessly in the future because of it. (See, if we were a Dictatorship instead of a Democracy, Bush would still be tossing his military hard on all over the world instead of Obama flashing his Vag ;) ). That alone makes for a much more peaceful and workable Iraq.

Okay I rambled I hope I addressed your point as to how it served our interests.

You make some good points. I'm still not sure that what we gained is worth what we lost though. That's a pretty deep debate though, and in the end it's subjective.

What's important is how we handle it now that we're there, and while I'm glad to see the truth come out like this, it isn't really that relevant to the moment.

Pxtl: shivashakti: Saddam WAS our ally. We knew he was gassing Kurds but we were still arming him and giving him funding. Because he was the enemy of Iran and was fighting them.

Up until the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein was 'our guy'. That doesn't make him any better but it does reflect rather poorly on the US.

Even during the invasion of Kuwait, he thought he was 'our guy'. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently there was some conversation to a US representative where Saddam said something to the effect of "Kuwaitis are slant-drilling into my oil. Is it cool if I take care of this?" and they gave him the go-ahead not realizing they just greenlit the invasion and attempted annexing of Kuwait.

My thoughts are that we went into Kuwait to prevent a Dictator from overthrowing a Monarch. No attempts ever made to give Kuwaitis democracy.

Pxtl: Know how I know you're a koolaid-drinking sheep?

People who use the words "koolaid" (sic) and "sheep" are usually themselves kool-aid-drinking-sheep who love to think they are thinking for themselves but often live in an echo chamber with many like-minded individuals.

/Seriously.
//You certainly didn't think of those terms by yourself.
///And your thoughts on the topics at hand are hardly original either.

06Wahoo: People who use the words "koolaid" (sic) and "sheep" are usually themselves kool-aid-drinking-sheep who love to think they are thinking for themselves but often live in an echo chamber with many like-minded individuals.

/Seriously.
//You certainly didn't think of those terms by yourself.
///And your thoughts on the topics at hand are hardly original either.

Granted... but I don't believe I've made a post blaming Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. for all of the US's foreign policy problems, so I still win. Partisan hacks of both varieties are idiots.

adamgreeney: You make some good points. I'm still not sure that what we gained is worth what we lost though. That's a pretty deep debate though, and in the end it's subjective.

What's important is how we handle it now that we're there, and while I'm glad to see the truth come out like this, it isn't really that relevant to the moment.

Every military action from the beginning of time will suffer the same debate, and you're absolutely correct about it being a deep and subjective one. The fact that we debate it, on top of the fact that we can, are just two of the reasons why I am happy I live in the Western Hempisphere :)

to totally rip off another post on this thread :

i farking told you so too.