With all else, Toad, I think you're forgetting all the years your country was supporting Saddam because it was convenient at the time.
'Convenient at the time' is a world-class understatement and shows you have no real grasp of history, international relations, etc.
The Middle Eastern Nation with the most powerful standing military - Iran - had just been taken over by a fundamentalist Muslim revolution. The arch-enemy of Iran - Iraq - was the 2nd most powerful Nation militarily, and was outnumbered roughly 3 to 1. So in your book the 'common sense' play would be to let Iran take over Iraq, and then be standing there alone next to Saudi Arabia and adjacent to the majority of the oil reserves for the entire free world. I'll clue you in a little - it wasn't only the U.S. that helped Iraq in this situation, and for obvious reasons. The fundamentalists of Iran didn't just hate the U.S.A. - they were the self-avowed enemies of most of the 'free' Western world. If they won the war with Iraq the results would have been absolutely catastrophic as far as the free market economy of the world goes. Or maybe you think it would have been 'no big deal' if, at the height of the cold war, the oil supply for every Nation opposed to the Soviet Union was suddenly put at very great risk. No - that would not have been destabalizing in the least bit. I am amazed at your ability to reduce major complex political and strategic military events to one or two sentences. Wherever you come from, it's amazing you don't work for your foreign ministry.
Or the years your government was supporting the afghan extremists terror attempts against the russian forces, again because it was convenient for you. Islamic radicals were ok while cutting throats as it was your ideological enemy suffering then.
You are an expert at one thing for certain - redifining reality to benefit your arguments. 'afghan extremists'? Afghanistan is almost entirely tribal. The various tribal leaders that chose to fight *the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan* were helped by the U.S., the U.K., Pakistan, and numerous other Nations. Again you say 'conventient'. Others would say there was a worldwide 'cold' war underway, and the communists invaded a Nation with the obvious strategic aim of threatening the oil reserves available to their enemies, which was a smart move. And bin-Laden's is one of the few who betrayed the Nations that helped those willing to fight the Soviets in their hour of need. Here's another short history lesson - numerically speaking, the majority of the forces that wound up overthrowing the Taliban were from the various Afghan warlords who fought the Soviet Union with the aid of the U.S., the U.K., etc. A couple of 'rebel' leaders did 'stab the West in the back'. The others remembered who their true friends are, which was very fortunate for 'the good guys'.
Based on your statement, you are defending the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan? It's apparent that you consider the Soviet forces involved in the invasion to be the 'victims' of 'Islamic radicals'?
Are you aware that a very small % of the armed forces facing the Soviet Army were Islamic extremists? The vast majority of the people who took up arms against the Soviets were Afghanis.
Before we move on, we'll correct this section of your 'historical fantasy' (for the sake of reality, and believe me, on this BBS reality could use the help):
1. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
2. Many more Nations that 'just the evil U.S.A.' aided Afghanistan, because they were the victims of an invasion by a hostile foreign military. Please note that this does not mean I smile at the thought of Soviet soldiers (or any soldiers for that matter, as opposed to terrorist types) getting their throats slit.
3. The vast majority of the fighters that opposed the Soviet forces in Afghanistan were Afghanis - 'Islamic extremists' were a minority (on a side note, some friendly advice here - if you ever find yourself speaking with an Afghani who fought the Soviets, do not explain to him how it was 'Islamic extremists' who fought and defeated the Soviet Army when it invaded Afghanistan).
4. The vast majority of the tribal leaders, warlords, and 'man in the street' types of Afghanistan are still grateful for U.S., U.K., Pakistani, etc. assistance 'in their hour of need' when they were facing the Soviet Union. Who do you think provided the Coalition forces with all that critical pre-invaion intel before the hammer dropped on the ATF (That's Alliance of Taliban Forces in case you were wondering) - Americans with shoe polish on their faces 'disguised' as Afghanis? It was Afghanis who had remained loyal and friendly to the West.
Saddam grew powerful partly because of your support. Same happened with afghan rebels. The problem with playing in the world sanbox is that historically looking, all those events have turned against you. You're fixing up your own mess down there.
You stated it again, so I'll correct you again.
1. Iraq had more Nations that the U.S. cheering for it during the Iran-Iraq war. This is partly because the Iranians were attacking oil tankers of all Nationalities in the region. Another reason people were cheering for Iraq is because Fundamentalist Islamic states with big strong militaries scare everyone who isn't an Islamic Fundamentalist.
2. The majority of the Afghani rebels who fought vs. the Soviet Union fought on the side of the Coalition when the time came to overthrow the Taliban. Words cannot explain the enthusiasm I would feel if I were allowed to take you to Afghanistan to 'set the record straight' with some 'Afghan rebels'. I'd even settle for taking you to 'little Vietnam' in San Jose and/or Los Angeles CA. and watching you explain to the Vietnamese immigrants 'what really happened in the war in Vietnam'. Air fare is on me - just let me pick up a video camera and get some legal paperwork done so I'm not responsible for your safety.
Anyway it's getting painfully obvious that you guys are living at your private world where outside influence has little effect.
Yeah, you really set the record straight. It's too bad that everyone else is too dumb to listen to you. I mean, I'm pretty sure you talked to more Iraqi POWs than I did after the '91 war, right? And you've talked to more Afghanis as well? Or is it that reading the papers and watching the news gives you a better idea of what is 'really going on'? And I'm sure you know what really happened in Vietnam better than Toad - after all, he was only in the military at the time.
Then again, you could just be clueless, and posting inflammatory remarks on topics that you have no real-world knolwedge of, which is sadly sort of the 'norm' for this part of the BBS as of late (both in terms of overly pro-U.S. arrogance and anti-U.S. rhetoric).
But where you really crossed the line, at least with me, was the gloating over the casualties to Coalition troops in Iraq. Your average American may have an overly simplified view of the world, but they almost always err in favor of the good guys. Even the daydreamers in America that chanted 'Ireland must be free' (as if the Irish were living behind the U.K.s own version of the 'Iron Curtain') never 'cheered the good news' when some U.K. soldier wound up KIA in N. Ireland (and that attitude is far to the left of my personal attitude, for what it's worth). In Algeria French soldiers were the 'good guys' to Americans - because even if there was some valid argument against them being there they didn't target women and kids as part of their SOP - and their enemies did. Some Americans have said some dumb things on this BBS, but not one has ever gloated over the deaths of anyone's combat troops - even Iraqi combat troops. In your other thread you asked 'are we happy now?'. I think you knew the answer before you asked the question, which makes the question all the more tasteless. Your question of Toad about being part of a 'fiasco' when he was serving in the military at the time is also a maneuver destined for the 'Big Book Of Classic prettythanghole Statements'. I'm sure that Toad was the one who made the U.S. Congress vote to leave Vietnam 'in the lurch'. Luckily, he never got what was coming to him. Your secret is safe with me Toad.
Your entire line of reasoning is severely lacking in facts. The Iraqi people are far better off today than they were a year ago. The day after you posted your 'Forget about Iraq?' thread the former Iraqi Defense Minister surrendered largely in part to reasoning on the part of the Coalition that he could help put an end to the diehards still fighting a guerilla war. "No end in sight"? Maybe you're closing your eyes because you don't ever want to see an end to the guerilla attacks whose sole aim is to prevent the creation of a stable self-governed Iraq?
I get the feeling of banging my head to the wall - and there's no point to continue.
Yeah, it must get tiring throwing together 2-paragraph fantasy gloats involving the deaths of U.S. servicemen as opposed to spending 30 minutes or more posting multiple paragraphs involving facts, careful analysis, etc. in an effort to educate and generate worthwhile discussions. You appear certain that the U.S. is evil, etc. Since we're 'beyond saving' here at the AH BBS, maybe you should frequent the Al-Jazeera BBS. I'm fairly sure your world views and your peculiar 'version' of history would make you fairly popular over there. I'm actually envious of you - I'd sleep a lot better at night if I could reduce the major problems of the world into 2 simplified sentences when it comes to right and wrong, solutions, etc.
Mike/wulfie
p.s. What's up with not saying what Nation you are a citizen of? What's the big deal?
p.p.s.
To everyone who fought the communists in Vietnam.
