Fascinating. They attacked on my birthday! :eek:

D'ohh! *sips at coffee* I meant Israel. Worse, that doesn't even make sense in the context of the discussion. I'm going to stop posting late at night, I think... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hold on. Purblind?!? My whole point was that it was people who keep glamorising the Gulf War by conveniently forgetting the financial considerations were the ones who couldn't see the whole side of the story...

At any rate, the entire POINT of the treaties you refer to was to give the UN a legal foothold to intervene if the oilfields (and therefore, Kuwait) were under threat.

I would suggest that the Gulf War COST us a whole lot of money... and while one could argue it was about maintaining the free flow of oil from the region (which was in our national interest), it was also about stopping agression before it had a chance to spread. The security of Saudi Arabia was a MAJOR Strategic concern and it is REALLY the primary reason we got our butts over there so quickly. There is no shame in taking actions to protect the Strategic interests of your country... none at all.

The US (and Western Civilization as a whole) has made a LOOOTTTT of stupid mistakes over the last 226 years, Desert Storm was NOT one of them. It was arguably the single greatest military achievement of the 20th century (and there were a lot of military achievements during the 20th century :( ), and it exemplified how proper application of force can turn a long drawn out deadly war into a sneeze of a campaign with minimal allied casualties (and arguably lower enemy casualties than would have occurred in a drawn out engagement)

We were not the agressors in that war, Iraq was the agressor. The reason Saddam was left in power was to attempt to AVOID making a mess of the region. (and this has been largely successful) His unwillingness to be pacified could not have been predicted with a high degree of certainty at the time, thus our course of action was not unreasonable. Sadly it didn't work, but it was worth the effort. Bringing down Saddam is a risky affair, the power vacuum his departure will make is going to leave a dangerous instability in the region... and likely require long term commitments of troops and support in the region. (not a popular thing with the American people... nor any others I imagine)

<font color="#55aacc"> Yeah and I remember Tariq Aziz (Iraqi Ambasador?) on national television stating that Iraq was in Kuwait by their invitation and that the idea that they had invaded Kuwait was just American Propaganda....Yeah I give the Iraqi pronouncements lots of weight! :rolleyes: </font>

<font color="#55aacc">Tancred, you do the United States a disservice when you accuse it of only doing things for "The US Dollar" and not for people. That is such a total untruth that I don't even know how to really address it. FOR example. Since the Taliban gained control in Afghanistan roughly 6200 Afghani's have been relocated by the US state department to the United states. giiven homes, Jobs, food, and clothing. That isnt because of our war on terrorism, the relocations were started long before Sept. 11 2001. How does that help the strength of the US dollar?

The War in Kuwait did help our economic interests, but that was not the sole reason we were there and any statement to the contrary is just mean spirited and baseless. It is also being grossly unfair to those decision makers who did what was right.</font>

<font color="#55aacc">Tancred, you do the United States a disservice when you accuse it of only doing things for "The US Dollar" and not for people. That is such a total untruth that I don't even know how to really address it. FOR example. Since the Taliban gained control in Afghanistan roughly 6200 Afghani's have been relocated by the US state department to the United states. giiven homes, Jobs, food, and clothing. That isnt because of our war on terrorism, the relocations were started long before Sept. 11 2001. How does that help the strength of the US dollar?

The War in Kuwait did help our economic interests, but that was not the sole reason we were there and any statement to the contrary is just mean spirited and baseless. It is also being grossly unfair to those decision makers who did what was right.</font>[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I have come to the conclusion that no mater what the USA does, we are still, greedy, war hungery, evil,vile monster who have no regaurd for human life.

*shrugs*

Isn't *every* government?

Isn't *every* government?[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe, I dont know enough abut every goverment in the world The USA just seems to be a scape goat of things that go wrong in the world.

It is a shame, but that just seems to be what happens... when something goes wrong or someone screws up but you're not sure who, the finger always seems to be pointed at the guy (country) at the top. It happens in business, in families (I blame the parents...) and world politics, perhaps. Human nature again?