why do service members get all the love?

[BucfanNC12]

Germany was in ruins when that guy Hitler was removed. Should never have gotten involved there.

Are you serious?

[Durango 95]

Apparently the catastrophic, catalyzing event of a new Pearl Harbor has rendered the original Pearl Harbor passe.

[Durango 95]

Besides, as everyone should know....We've always been at war with Eastasia.

[Chief Joseph]

" Yes Saddam was a dictator but he posed no threat to us."

To say that an expansionist megalomaniac throttling the Persian Gulf was no threat to us is more than a little naive, sir. You're not one of those 'I don't need oil, I ride the bus' types, are you?

[Durango 95]

Expansionist megalomaniacs throttling their neighbors is mere window dressing.

The oil on the other hand....

[Chief Joseph]

 
Oil you can't get to while said megalomaniac is in control, which is precisely why he poses a threat. I thought the last sentence of my previous post made that clear.

[Durango 95]

Crystal clear.....The point I'm making is that all that stuff about expansionist megalomanic is of little consequence "to us" as evidenced by the support we gave him and other dictators. Only when the maniacal ego got in the way of our oil supply did that whole thing of vile dictator come into play. Might have made an interesting feel-good story line for home consumption. But, let's not pretended that who we do business with is in any way dependent on how swell of a guy some third world leader happens to be.

[Chief Joseph]

You seem to be trying to argue with me by saying the same thing I am. When he threatened to get between us and the oil, he became a threat and he got **CENSORED** slapped. But he didn't really become a threat until he tried to expand his territory and monopolize the area. Previous to that he wasn't expansionist. That's what got his fat into the fire.

  " The point I'm making is that all that stuff about expansionist megalomanic is of little consequence"

This, specifically is where we disagree. Expansionism led directly to his downfall.

[Durango 95]

No I'm not arguing your point at all.

I'm pointing out that maniacal dictators are all hunky dory until they get in the way our interests. Then once they do, we quickly paint them as an evil dictator that must be stopped because it's the humanitarian thing to do. We were told that we needed to stop Saddam because of his crimes against humanity etc. That supposedly was the reason for our involvement. But as we both know it had nothing to do w/ that and everything to do w/ the oil.

If had become a maniacal expansionist w/o threatening the oil supply the humanitarian angle we were sold would have been persona non grata (so to speak)

[Chief Joseph]

" If had become a maniacal expansionist w/o threatening our oil supply it would be of no consequence,"

And this is where you're wrong. The simple act of being a successful expansionist poses a threat of its own accord. It upsets the balance of power in the area, and interferes with our strategy of playing all of these countries off against each other. Saddam was receptive to our requests at the time he invaded Kuwait. But there was no way that we were going to let someone like that accumulate too much power.

[Chief Joseph]

Let's come at this from a different direction. What I hear you saying is "We took Saddam out because he threatened our oil supply, not because he was an unstable expansionist." Is that correct?

Here's what I'm saying to you: you cannot separate the two. It was because he was an unstable expansionist that he became a threat to our oil. If he hadn't been an unstable expansionist, he wouldn't have been a threat and we wouldn't have had to take him out.

[Durango 95]

Fair point.

However, no where in your (above) explanation of his expansionism is there anything remotely close to what the public was being told. All the talk involved humanitarian efforts, gassing Kurds etc. By using the humanitarian angle to rally the general public to the cause meant that the invasion was represented falsely. Which leaves many people, even now, believing our efforts were altruistic in nature.

[Chief Joseph]

The sheep must be led.

[BucfanNC12]

" Yes Saddam was a dictator but he posed no threat to us."

To say that an expansionist megalomaniac throttling the Persian Gulf was no threat to us is more than a little naive, sir. You're not one of those 'I don't need oil, I ride the bus' types, are you?

lol. That was a nice one. To answer your question no. We don't see eye-to-eye on this. I don't think "Saddam" was legit reason to have troops there as long as we have. Well, as we were told.

One guys walks up to another guy on the street and slaps him. The guy who got slapped angrily walks away and kicks another guy in the nuts. After that he goes to the guy who slapped him and punches him in the face. Thats pretty much how did whole ordeal looks. 

[BucfanNC12]

Let's come at this from a different direction. What I hear you saying is "We took Saddam out because he threatened our oil supply, not because he was an unstable expansionist." Is that correct?

Here's what I'm saying to you: you cannot separate the two. It was because he was an unstable expansionist that he became a threat to our oil. If he hadn't been an unstable expansionist, he wouldn't have been a threat and we wouldn't have had to take him out.

I'm glad that you said that.