sweet Video on CNN Killing Americans

[crabofix]

Gscholz.

The Flow of Oil into the US is the bigest concern and it needs to be secured, no matter the what.
This is highly understandable, as the Us society is a very fragile one.

Now for the Video thing.
I grew up watching the News from vietnam. People got killed, US as well as Vietcong and civilians.
It is not a good thing to watch that stuff, but I bet you are not saying anything about the "other team" getting killed on your Television set.

If it touches you this bad: Welcome, this is what is happening down there, every day. To both sides, People lose thier lives. Its a fact.

[Westy]

Gofaster I think Iran is just smartly waiting out the current situation before doing much of anything.  IMO when the opportunity comes, when Iraq is governing themselves, I believe they will try to use thier influence with the Iraqi Shia's to help move Iraq towards being another Iran.

 As for Syria. they do one thing (aid the guerillas and help isurgents get into Iraq) while supposedly handing over former regime mebers to the US. They're playing both cards and will probably get burned for it somewhere along the lines. IMO though the US had the momentum and the excuses earlier. Now an invasion or attack on Syria will look like imperialism or "Zionists using the US as a puppet" no matter what the excuse.

 As for supposedly being pro-active with an Iraq that the US government just "knew" would be hostile, aggressive and belligerant?  That would be like the US attacking Germany for taking back the Rhineland in 1936 because they could "see" Germany invading Poland and France in 1939-1940.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by crabofix
If it touches you this bad: Welcome, this is what is happening down there, every day. To both sides, People lose thier lives. Its a fact.

It is a fact but it isn't necessary. It is those opposed to Iraqi self-rule that are now inflicting these casualties upon Americans and Iraqis.

Someone opposed to American involvement in Iraq please tell me what you think these insurgents hope to accomplish.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Westy
As for supposedly being pro-active with an Iraq that the US government just "knew" would be hostile, aggressive and belligerant?  That would be like the US attacking Germany for taking back the Rhineland in 1936 because they could "see" Germany invading Poland and France in 1939-1940.

So quickly we forget why Iraq was invaded in '91. It wasn't proactive but reactive.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by GScholz
This is pure BS. Hitler would never have come to power if Germany won WWI. You should read up on WWI and the reasons for it. A few hints: Germany did not start the war. Germany (just like you are claming to do now) made a "preemptive" strike against France and Russia ... in self-defense (Funny how history repeats itself ... or at least the political rhetoric). Had Germany not attacked, France and Russia would have. Britton got involved to please the French and Russians who at that time were competitive colonial empires. The US popped in at the end to get in on the spoils, and to have a say in the peace.

You're right.  The Kaiser would've retained his government, at least a bit longer.  Nazism never would've happened because there never would've been the German anger that fueled it.  My apologies on that point.  You are correct.

Actually, Serbia started the war. It was the entangling alliances that brought the conflict out to the global scope it had. The German "swinging gate" attack plan was sound and had France reeling until the German generals on the eastern "gate" refused to swing back towards Germany and instead relied on trench warfare.  With the stalemate came attrition, and with attrition came pleas for assistance to the US.  Eventually the US would have entered the war, it was just a question of "when?".

America could easily have come to the aid of Germany rather than Britain and France, but the Lusitania was effectively used by the pro-British group as a powerful emotional trigger.

[Westy]

AKIron as I said before I don't care two bits about Kuwait. That applied back then too.  As I said before the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was something for the countries in the region to have resolved.  The US got involved not because of any UN resolution; they did get involved to thwart an Iraq bent on world domination and the US most definately not go there due to any imagined "friendship" or solidarity with the Kuwaiti's. The US did what they wanted to do and because of oil.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Westy
AKIron as I said before I don't care two bits about Kuwait. That applied back then too.  As I said before the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was something for the countries in the region to have resolved.  The US got involved did not because of any UN mandate, not to thwart an Iraqi bent on world domination and most definately not for any imagined "friendship" or solidarity with the Kuwaiti's. The US did because of oil.

Just like you many didn't care "two bits" for Europe back in the 1940's.

Ya know we can have friendships based on mutual benefit. While the US certainly helps the helpless it isn't evil for us to help those from whose relationship we benefit.

[bigsky]

they wouldnt get ambushed if they were doing proper recon and have infantry ahead and the sides of the convoys. that would stop the ambushes cold, but they couldnt go speeding around at 50mph. i dont know what there teaching those soldiers these days.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=27&rnd=931.3696268965701

[gofaster]

Originally posted by GScholz
Then you believe wrongly. Al Queada did not attack you for your involvement in Lebanon. Your Israel support is a given, but not enough. Bin Laden himself has stated that the reason for the Jihad is your presence in Saudi-Arabia, and that it's a threat to Islam. Al Queada is attacking you because you interfere in Middle-Eastern matters.

The UN is now being attacked in Iraq because of your involvement. The UN would never (and did not) approve of this invasion, but your power in the world and the UN has forced the issue. An act of monumental stupidity in a world that needs the UN more than ever, and where the UN could have fulfilled it's potential to promote peace. No longer ... thanks to the US of A.

Thank you America.

If I'm not mistaken, we were in Saudi Arabia because of the invasion of Kuwait in '91.  So, if I understand correctly, you're saying:

a) that al Queda attacked the US because it assisted a Muslim nation against the attack of another Muslim nation and because that assistance was provided by the permission of another Muslim nation?  If so, then the real target for al Queda would be Saudi Arabia (for allowing us infidels upon their blessed sands) and Kuwait (for asking us infidels to liberate their country).

b) that had the US never assisted Kuwait, then the US would never have been attacked by al Queda?  The sailors of the USS Cole, who died in the harbor at Yemen in October, 2000, a full year before our fighters landed in Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield, would disagree.

c) that the UN is perfectly capable of brokering peace amongst nations without providing "peacekeepers" to assist member nations?  Yes, I see that Somalia is totally peaceful now, its people well fed and happy, since the UN peacekeepers pulled out under a hail of gunfire.



If I'm not mistaken, the UN was created by the US, and the US is the main contributor of resources to the UN.  If the US were to adopt a policy of isolationism, then there would be no UN.  Isolationism requires that the US not be involved in the affairs of other nations.  Isolationsim and the UN cannot co-exist.

[miko2d]

gofaster:

 Actually, the end of war got delayed by over a year and caused much more casualties because US broke the stalemate.
 Instead of a face-saving peace resulting from no-win fighting that everybody admitted at the time, the war was ended with a crushing defeat to several sides (germany, russia) and greater devastation to others, which seriously destabilised the continent.

 Instead of humanity getting disgusted with a bloody war for no gain to eather side, and forever forswearing wars, people got a lesson that a more bloodier war can be victorious and profitable.

 Professor Wilson was an idealist fanatic who changed the terriotorial character of the war into and ideological one - and hence made it a total war with no compromises possible but total destruction of one side.
 His greatest joy was when he heard that the allied russian monarchy fell in favor of more democratic government - which proved short-lived.
 He went to destruction of the Austian Empire and creating nonsensical ethnically oppressive states with abandon - like Chechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, that were just a ticking timebombs.
 He was not seeing anything except of his religious concept of democracy that was supposed to somehow worl miraculously - but did not.

 miko

[gofaster]

Originally posted by GScholz
Actually Austria-Hungary started the war by declaring war on Serbia after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assasinated in Sarajevo by Serb terrorists (believed to be supported by the Serb military).

A declaration of war is the formality.  The act of aggression is the cause.  Serbia caused the war by assassinating Archduke Ferdinand.

Germany ended the war ... on French soil. Germany went bankrupt, and would have gone bankrupt with or without your involvment. [/B]

Actually, I believe Germany would've won the continent.  France was well on its way to bankruptcy, too.  It was American $ and troops that pushed the battle to France's (and England's) side.  And, of course, the failure on the eastern "gate" to adhere to the strategy also mucked things up for Germany.  Germany had the initial push, and as you pointed out, they surrendered on French soil.  France was unable to dislodge the Germans.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
Then you believe wrongly. Al Queada did not attack you for your involvement in Lebanon. Your Israel support is a given, but not enough. Bin Laden himself has stated that the reason for the Jihad is your presence in Saudi-Arabia, and that it's a threat to Islam. Al Queada is attacking you because you interfere in Middle-Eastern matters.

The UN is now being attacked in Iraq because of your involvement. The UN would never (and did not) approve of this invasion, but your power in the world and the UN has forced the issue. An act of monumental stupidity in a world that needs the UN more than ever, and where the UN could have fulfilled it's potential to promote peace. No longer ... thanks to the US of A.

Thank you America.

Many believe Saddam Hussein intended to restore Iraq to the glory of that of Mesopotamia. Kuwait was but his first stepping stone toward conquering the middle east. He even had a coin minted with his picture on one side and Nebuchadnezzar on the other. He also built a huge army and for what if not conquering his neighbors? Regardless of what you believe he did invade a peaceful neighbor and member of the UN. The UN agreed to disapprove his action and acted accordingly.

[crabofix]

The Kuwait story is very old.

You just check out how Kuwait became Kuwait and then you check on how old IRAQ is, just remember that it was called "mesopotamia" before.

Kumait was a Soverign country, that Iraq attacked because of border quarells. Not because of  "world" domination.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by crabofix
The Kuwait story is very old.
 

Not so old as the WWII story. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.

[gofaster]

Actually, Iraq wanted Kuwait's money (and oil fields).  Also, the destruction of Kuwait would've absolved Iraq of its debt.  Iraq had the military, Kuwait had the money.

Iraq said: "With my guns, I can take your money." and Kuwait replied: "With my money, I can buy more guns."