Michael Weaver posted this on Facebook:
Posted on 11/16/2012 12:03:01 PM PST by SargeK
A top Iraqi diplomat urged Arab states to “use the weapon of oil” against the United States because of its alliance with Israel, raising more questions about the Middle Eastern nation's allegiance to the nation that freed it from a ruthless dictatorship.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
One sees precious little evidence that this “gentleman’s” views are much at variance with the rest of his government or for that matter the vast majority of the population of this benighted region.
I cannot agree with your drawing an equivalence between Europe post-WWII and the modern middle east. For one, we occupied Europe for fifty years. In a sense, we still do. Europe responded to the Marshall Plan and evolved. Maybe only because of total war, and they were finally exhausted of war and susceptible to change. Maybe the cushy welfare state we financed for them kept them fat and content. Anyway, Western Europe has avoided butchering one another for over half a century. Although, I think that is backsliding as we watch. Tribalism is on the rise in Europe as the welfare state collapses and the vestigial cultural differences are again emerging. Without an occupying power it will be interesting to see where this leads.
As for our own illustrious Premier (it seems fitting to use an honorific compatible with his political orientation) - I believe my brief comment on his opposition to the development of domestic sources of petroleum is sufficient.
Yep. On the wrong side in that one thanks to Clintoooon.
So much for gratitude. Next time, give imperialism a chance.
I agree, and so does my stepson who served as a tank driver in Iraqi Freedom. The only thing these ragheads understand is brute force, and we were much better off leaving the secular dictators in place and letting them kill each other off.
A great deal of blood and sweat was shed to give Iraq an opportunity. The jury is still out, however it does not look promising.
Instead of bombing Iraq to smithereens and leaving, Bush just had to do nation-building, spending $1T along the way, and giving us Obama and two far left Supreme Court judges. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” as applied to foreign affairs really screwed us big time. And the leading lights of the GOP are now looking to apply Bush’s policy towards any Arab troglodytes who want to overthrow their governments. What part of “inside every foreigner *isn’t* an American struggling to get out” don’t they understand? The way democracy works is garbage in, garbage out. America-haters will vote in an America-hating government. Ultimately, the neo-con manifesto is yet another example of the triumph of hope over experience in dictating foreign policy - disaster after disaster leaves these fantasists completely unfazed.
You ought to be pissed off at Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the other neocons who pushed us into this stupid invasion. Remember their promises? It will be quick and easy, the Iragi people will love us, and their oil will more than pay for the war?
This was the dumbest military move since Custer decided to pimp with a few Indians. I don’t know how any of those people can look in a mirror.
How much freign aid is Obama sending them?
Ok, anyone NOT see this coming? Falling right into line with Biblical prophesy.
Although I ended up voted for Nixon in 1968, I almost cast a ballot for George Wallace's American Independent Party solely because the great General Curtis LeMay was on the ticket. Had circumstances been such that LeMay had power in that adminstration, our victory in Vietnam would be assured and Red China would have been eliminated as a threat. Regardless of his other shortcomings, Wallace showed sound judgment in his choice of LeMay.
Michael Weaver posted this on Facebook:
SWAMPSNIPER, Over the years I’ve read and agree with most of your comments, however... “Iraq was a total waste of American blood.” is definitely not one of them!
We have not made a lasting reliable ally in the region. We haven't helped build a lasting democracy.
Iraq is just waiting for the next tyrant to take control, religious or secular, it makes no difference.
Absolutely pissed at them. Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Bennett, all pushed for ground troop intervention in Iraq. Even while Clinton was in office. Look up the letter they signed citing weapons of mass destruction. NEOCON job. Now they play stupid and sheepish after we spent Billions and more importantly sacrifice our men and women. For what ? To be slapped in the face by the newly “democratic” freely elected American hating Iraquis. God Bless our soldiers.
That arrogant jackass was (and is) more than happy to let Iraq implode.
Gulf War I and II were a mistake.
When Saddam did this, Bush I went in to protect the Saudis. The presence of American troops on Saudi was the "provocation" or rather justification used by AlQaeda for 9.11
Then we took out a secular dictator, SAddam in 2003 and replaced him with THIS.
What a waste of lives and money.
True, but Kurdish independence pi*** off the Turks who occupy a large chunk of Kurdish lands
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity. Religion is merely one of many systems of belief that relies purely on faith. Neo-conservatism is liberalism applied to foreign policy. It is hawkish, but in a kumbaya, we-are-all-the-same-under-the-skin kind of way.
We can conjecture: in 1988 Saddam finished the 8 year war with Iran, having killed a large chunk of the fanatical Shias
In this he was sponsored by Saudia and the Gulf states (including Kuwait) who used him as a proxy against Shia Iran which they feared and fear (just as they use Egypt against Israel)
In 1990 he decided that they didn't give him enough money and that Kuwait was filching extra oil from the shared oil reserves (which, if I'm not mistaken, they WERE doing) and took over
We went in and the Saudi king was correct when he said "I just snap my hands and my blue-eyed slaves will come and fight and die for me" and my money
If we hadn't, then this is the scenario:
All in all, a much better world for America and Europe, about the same level of danger for Israel.
Note -- in some ways Dubya was just following a nearly inevitable path after Gulf War I...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
