2013-03-20, 16:49 | Link #661 | |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
Quote:
In the end US citizens were played by big oil and got nothing out of it. |
|
2013-03-20, 16:53 | Link #662 | |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
Hearst whipped the country into a frenzy. |
|
2013-03-20, 16:54 | Link #663 | |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
Also, FYI, Saddam used to be an US ally too |
|
2013-03-20, 17:03 | Link #664 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-03-20, 17:06 | Link #665 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Saddam wasn't alone, but he was the only one to have crossed the line to the point were the US public would be willing to send in forces to beat him down. (He was an ally only because he was fighting the American, British. and Arabs new enemy, Iran, who has also been an ally up to that point. The change was crossing the line into Kuiwat. Prior to 1978, Iraq had been a Soviet ally.)
What did the US get out of it? In the actual war part of it, things felt pretty good. The US military kick the ever loving crap out of a dictator we didn't like and we got some entertainment from that one public relations spokesman in Bagdad saying the US troops were no were around while things exploded behind him. The war part went pretty much how the Americans like their wars to go. Fast and victorious. It was the aftermath that bogged down public moral as the US forces were not up to policing a country, nor did the reconstuction happen all that well (poor to no planning outside of pocket books). That is what turned us off. That and the reminders from casualties (still far less than Vietnam) from bombs mostly. Hindsight is a wonderful and yet terrible thing. Especially the Arab Spring. Do we know if that would have even happened without the US invading Iraq? No one seemed to see it coming at all from what I recall. It just sort of happened. For all we know, if we did nothing, today there would be a war going on between Syria and Iraq due to the Arab Spring, or if sanctions were still ongoing in Iraq, a combined set of problems as the news would still be going on about nukes in Iraq and Iran, with Israel's right-wing government hopping mad that we aren't doing anything about either of them.
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2013-03-20 at 17:18. |
2013-03-20, 17:19 | Link #666 |
On a mission
Author
|
It is much easier to attack an enemy area by proxy, then to hold that area while maintaining sufficient mobility elsewhere.
They really should have played the Brood War campaign. :/ Anyhow, I will just say that a lot of people died that we can feel good about ourselves. Though some good came out of it, we were just never up to the task of rebuilding a country when we can't even handle our own.
__________________
|
2013-03-20, 18:38 | Link #667 | |||||
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
2013-03-20, 20:22 | Link #668 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-20, 20:31 | Link #669 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-03-20, 21:07 | Link #670 | |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
Quote:
You remind me about a joke I read many years ago in a reader's digest. It was about how the Reagan administration send diplomatic messages i.e. the bombardment of Libya (there were other examples I forgot) and at the end of the joke someone tells Reagan their ambassador in Moscow is asking for a new luxury car because the soviets are starting to think the west isn't so rich, Reagan answers "We have an ambasador in Moscow? We have better methods to deliver diplomatic statements!". With all the experience the diplomatic history the USA has (remember how commodore perry "opened" trade with japan?) it would be quite unheard for a fumble of the size (and the kind) you mention, I would believe it from 21st century China, but not from 20th century USA diplomacy. Last edited by mangamuscle; 2013-03-20 at 23:22. Reason: I'm very sory to have confused Saddam with Gaddafi, mind fart m(_ _)m |
|
2013-03-20, 22:24 | Link #671 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
If you're heavily invested in dollar, and quite a few nations are, this is not a wonderful idea to pursue. It's an instance where politics and economics are basically the same thing, and if the political and economic deterrents fail, military style action kicks in. Sometimes it's your intelligence agencies instigating events, sometimes it's something with more muscle, and sometimes it's both.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-21, 06:55 | Link #672 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Assuming the story is true, our diplomats weren't pounding on the table and screaming at the Iraqi diplomats, which caused the Iraqis to think that we were bluffing. The issue was not one of language, but of culture. Understanding another's culture does not mean that you must emulate that culture to communicate. Whether the American diplomats understood the Middle Eastern culture or not is also somewhat irrelevant; the Iraqis seemingly did not understand how business is conducted over here. Between the two that represents a serious issue for the Iraqi side. When negotiating with another nation that is making threats about armed force, a diplomat would do well to ensure that their own nation is the stronger of the two before so casually dismissing the threats, particularly based on the premise that the body language and behavior is not the same as it is back home.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-21, 10:38 | Link #673 |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
@Ledgem I have no doubt said incident was true, that is how deception thru mass media works. Please do remember that there was a huge window of opportunity to prevent the invasion, we aren't talking about a situation where Saddam's cousin grabbed a cell phone to tell what he saw to Iraq's dictator and then Saddam pressed a button, launched a missile and boom, end of story. Moving all of your tanks from the border with Iran takes time and can't be done without all of the world noticing. The USA has air bases all over the world and can deploy fully armed long range bombers in a jiffy, obtaining permission from the Saudi's to fly over their territory would be a given (since once Saddam had Kuwait his next target would be the whole peninsula). So maybe a pre-emptive carpet bombing would not have destroyed all of the tanks, but would have sent a clear message that would not be "lost in translation". To complete the message the US would only need to send some air carrier navy vessels to Kuwait (that would no doubt pay all the expenses to prevent an invasion). Saddam would not invade Kuwait if he could not keep it, but once he invaded he could not just leave since that would be akin to admitting he had become weak on his old age.
Mark my words, when a Republican president returns to the white house the first message he will send will be about the danger Iran represents blah, blah. Translation, our big oil overlords controls Iraq's oil and want to controls Iran's oil too and we are behind schedule, dammit. |
2013-03-21, 12:12 | Link #674 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
It's just so very hard to focus on Iran as a threat when North Korea is shouting about how they are going to kill everybody.
I mean, trying to manufacture unsubstantiated fears of nuclear proliferation is difficult when the US is blatantly ignoring a different nation who already have nukes and screaming out of loud speakers about how they want to destroy America. Kim is wrecking the message damn it. How is the US army suppose to invade Iran under false pretenses if Iran is so clearly not the number 1 threat?
__________________
|
2013-03-21, 12:49 | Link #675 |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
@Vallen Chaos Valiant In 2003 North Korea was starting a real nuclear program but guess what, the USA decided to invade the country with the fictional nuclear program (I will never forget Colin Powell outright lying at the UN council). If it worked back then why would a republican government not repeat the formula? In recent history is the only thing they do, repeat the same old formulas hoping it will work one more time.
|
2013-03-21, 13:08 | Link #678 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
We do such a "bang up" job on foreign affairs, it is just an easy target (and sometimes it only makes sense if you view our antics from a "captains of industry" (robber baron) perspective)
__________________
|
|
|