Posted on 08/28/2003 7:35:28 AM PDT by u-89
Neither.
> Think back to 9-11-2001. This is when the story begins.
No it doesn't. The first Gulf War would be a more convenient date. Something we didn't need to get involved with and have been paying for ever since.
> Bin Laden was demolishing our embassies in Africa with huge death tolls and the cowardly Bill Clinton did NOTHING
Most unwise on his part as a leader and typically for him very selfish. As best I can figure he wanted to avoid anything that was risky to his poll numbers. He should have retaliated forcefully.
> Payback is a b***h and not responding is not an option.
I agree. Bin Laden and Co. think so too. The CIA call terrorist occurrences "Blowback." Meaning reaction to our policies.
As I stated a prudent foreign policy is trying to peaceable engage other nations or at least to avoid making mortal enemies. We have a habit of just the opposite. Since no connection between Saddam and 9/11 was ever established all one can say is that we took cynical advantage of our fight with Bin Laden to occupy Iraq so we can have a large permanent base from which to project force and dominate the oil flow to our benefit. Nice move for certain corporate types and megalomaniacs intent on remaking foreign societies but not something that will ensure safety for Americans. We just guaranteed may long years of bloodshed and sorrow. Nothing cowardly about pointing out the flaws of the foolish and greedy.
P.S. never voted for a democrat in my life. I have a natural born aversion to all things socialist which sadly now includes the GOP.
I have NEVER heard anyone 'speak' or even hint at such a thing.
-------------------------------------------------
Please do a search on FR and google for keywords like empire, imperial, imperialism, colonialism and all the variants. You will find opinion columns from National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic and a host of other sources from center left/center right (neocon) pundits who have been trying to whitewash these terms so we can get use to the idea.
Yeah, values like don't kill your people with NERVE GAS, don't INVADE your Neighbors, Don't MASS MURDER your own people, and use the resources of an entire NATION for your own pleasure, yeah, that is some really strange VALUES to try and FORCE on the REST of the WORLD.
Liberals, pulease get a life and a dogma that can't be laughed at.
dennisw: I have nothing more to discuss with you
Fine, don't discuss anything then but perhaps you should review the facts.
a) 1990 - Iraq is finished with a war against Iran and is deep in debt.
b) Kuwait is pumping more oil than allowed by OPEC agreement, deflating the price of oil thus hurting Iraq's already troubled economy and ability to repay it's debts.
b1) Kuwait is drilling sideways under their border taping into Iraqi fields.
c) Iraq does a lot of very loud saber rattling but the Kuwaitis do not cease and desist.
d) The US does not take the initiative to be a peace broker or approach OPEC members on the brewing trouble.
d2) The US ambassador to Iraq April Glasby actually tells Saddam that his dispute with Kuwait is not our concern thus giving him a green light for action.
e) Saddam finally makes a move against Kuwait and we scream like a stuck pig about how Saddam is the next Hitler and we need to "restore democracy to Kuwait".
f) We tell the Saudis they need us to protect them though they do not feel threatened. We say we have satellite photos of Iraqi armor massing on their border ready to overrun them. Other countries satellites show nothing on the border - theirs are released to the world - we stand by our story and to this day have not released our photos.
g) We assure the Saudis our bases will only be on their soil for as long as it takes to liberate Kuwait.
h) We leave Saddam in power and establish no fly zones over his sovereign territory telling him he has no rights there thus making sure we need permanent bases to counter him and thus never leave Saudi Arabia. In short we now have a permanent excuse to have our troops in theatre where they can project force.
i) Just an aside - the Soviet Union had collapsed the year before and was therefore in no position to object to our moving into the gulf.
Hate is irrational. It rots the soul and clouds the judgment thus disqualifying one from being a good or wise leader. Your policy outline is simply murder and theft. At least the neocon heirarchy whitewashes their statements with noble sounding bromides like benevolent global hegemony, Pax Americana and all that. You may be a soulmate of the neocons but don't expect a job as a pundit or diplomat from this crowd anytime soon. You do more harm to the cause than good.
You are incorrect. I do not hate anyone, nor have I advocated anyone's murder, nor theft of any kind. If you are familiar with the House of Saud you know that they were basically a mafia family picked by Chruchill and FDR to be The Corleones and rule the peninsula. There is nothing whatsoever royal about them, nor is there any link or claim to the lineage of Mohammed. They are the epicenter of global terror and must be removed from power. The experiment has failed. Moreover, oil is the lifebloo of Western economies and cannot be held hostage to despotic regimes whoch do not adhere to market forces. I am advocating the removal of the Ibn Saud Clan from leadership, the destruction of the flow of money to global terrorsm, and the disintegration of OPEC through removal of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Emirates and Kuwait from its membership. No murder, no theft. Just rational foreign policy goals.
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.