U.S. deploys more troops to the Middle East in response to Iranian threats to close Strait Of Hormuz - Polidicks

U.S. deploys more troops to the Middle East in response to Iranian threats to close Strait Of Hormuz

127 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=Persious;36621255]What if the US army went out of all the fucking countries they were in already, I bet it would solve a lot of stuff.[/QUOTE] It could also possibly lead to local economies around military bases collapsing..?

[QUOTE=scout1;36621237]Let me help you. [img]http://i.imgur.com/jS45Z.png[/img][/QUOTE] Implying a joke is a opinion, ok.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;36621580]Implying a joke is a opinion, ok.[/QUOTE] Jokes=funny Retarded jokes=Not funny Backpedaling=HILARIOUS

[QUOTE=AK'z;36617940]doesn't anyone find it funny how Amurricans pronounce Iran like "I ran"? Pretty dumb and makes things confusing. Also when I heard an amurrican friend of mine say antibiotics I lost it. :v:[/QUOTE] Ant-eye bye-ah-ticks?

Let us liberate their limbs into fine red mist, shall we?

[QUOTE=BloodYScar;36618016]Iran does what Iran wants and has the right to The US sanction Iran Iran sanctions the US The US threaten Iran with war because their oil is in danger Sounds reasonable.[/QUOTE] Iran doesn't have the right to close the Straight of Hormuz. That's what happened last time.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;36621746]Jokes=funny Retarded jokes=Not funny Backpedaling=HILARIOUS[/QUOTE] Eh whatever, there is absolutely no reason I should care what you think nor should you care what I think.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;36621884]Eh whatever, there is absolutely no reason I should care what you think nor should you care what I think.[/QUOTE] Well if you're wasting thread space, then yeah that might be something to care about.

[QUOTE=Apache249;36621918]Well if you're wasting thread space, then yeah that might be something to care about.[/QUOTE] okay

[QUOTE=scout1;36620357]"I do not understand US foreign policy" [URL="http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/obama_gulf_oil_and_myth_americas_addiction_10159"]The US imports about 10% of its oil from arab countries.[/URL] Following OPEC's embargo in the 70s, the US knew it wasn't a good idea. Your other points are laughable, so let me dismantle them: "Why else would Nato go in to Libya so quickly and not into Syria?" I dunno it's this little thing called oh yeah russian energy reserves Also the US was not involved in the NATO intervention into Libya, so that's some bunk right there. [/QUOTE] Russian energy reserves? Do you mean oil? Syria barely has any oil. And Russian interests didn't stop the US in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc... Um the US was involved: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Forces_committed[/URL] [quote]"Why else would the US give two shits about Kuwait (fun fact: Kuwait kept selling oil really cheap to the US so Iraq decided to invade them)?" Nevermind the fact that a genocidal dictator invaded a sovereign country and was planning to invade another and had widespread human rights abuses. Obviously we invaded them for the oil (which we import very little of from the middle east - see above). [/quote] A genocidal dictator that the US supported literally 3 years before the gulf war. Are you really naive enough to believe that the US cared about human rights when it started the gulf war? Why else would the US only have deployed troops in Saudi Arabia and not invaded straight away. Why else did it take heavy lobbying from Kuwait to start the war? Why else would Bush Snr. all of a sudden start mentioning Iraqi human rights abuses after Kuwait had lobbied heavily? Yes you invaded Iraq because you were afraid that Saddam would jump at Saudi Arabia, which may only provide 12% of your oil, however, that oil is still crucial. [URL]http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised[/URL] - 'He points out that the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Iran and therefore does not import its oil. But "if Iranian oil goes off the [world] market, it still affects the price in the United States," Crane says.' Fun fact #1: Most of the alleged Iraqi war crimes were just make believe. Fun fact #2: The US supported Saddam when he was gassing the Kurds and the Iranians. Fun fact #3: The US sponsored uprisings against Saddam and then left the revolutionaries to die. Fun fact #4: US sanctions (on medicine, food, etc...) ended up killing 500,000 children. (Do you even understand how fucking many children that is? Do you have any idea how horrible that is?) Fun fact #5: The US oil for food program was meant to help the Iraqi people, but the US continued bombing the oil wells so even if the people had been in power, they couldn't have gotten any food. Fun fact #6: The US supplied weaponry to Saddam and the chemicals needed for the gas during the Iran-Iraq war. [quote]"They also sell a metric fuckton of weapons to nations in the middle-east" Yes. So does Russia, France, and the UK. Are you going to scream at the french for supplying the mirage fighters that allowed Israel to be THE predominant air power in the 60s/70s? [/quote] Yes of course I am going to scream at France for doing that, they are giving weapons to genocidal maniacs. I attack the US the most because it is the biggest and it also claims so very often that is protects the rights of humans. [quote]"[...] and it needs to have friendly governments in order to keep doing so." Not at all. See contra affair.[/quote] That was on a very small scale.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;36620044]Holy shit, this. Can we all cut it with this oil bullshit? People realized that was stupid back in 2005. If we go in, we go in because the US government is trying to preserve its stance in the region and on the world stage.[/QUOTE] You do realize it's not just the US that wants the oil, but the whole of EU and south korea? The sanctions are meant to force iran to to be more liberal with it's oil and let the market have free access to it w/o it being used as a bargaining chip. This is classic imperialism, nationalists vs liberal empires. You act like hostilities happen for the hell of it, or because of 'assholes', not interests. It doesn't fucking matter if we got 10% or 5% of our oil from there, you completely miss the point. The loss of 10% of your oil imports can have a significant effect on prices and investor confidence, which will be felt everywhere because oil is involved in pretty much all of our production. By forcing iran to be liberal with its oil and cease to be a threat to oil producers around it, we can stabilize and lower the costs of many things in the west. You make yourself look pretty fucking dumb by pretending we dont care about the markets of basic goods. Not to mention you're not doing yourself any favors by being such a contrarian. It's childish.

You now realize that Iran hates us because we overthrew their democratically elected leader who wanted to nationalize oil production after getting screwed over in some bad deals. :o

Let me first, requote you earthen "The fuck is wrong with you people? The US is trying to preserve its interests in the region which are oil and weapons... and of course power. Yeah Saudi Arabia has oil and that is exactly why the US has a constant troop presence there and turns a blind eye to all the shit that Saudi Arabia does." I'll be revisiting that quote several times in this post. [QUOTE=Earthen;36622228]Russian energy reserves? Do you mean oil? Syria barely has any oil. And Russian interests didn't stop the US in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc... [/QUOTE] ...Russian native oil. Natural gas and uranium, too. Korea? Vietnam? Are you talking about the cold war, son? We're talking 21st century, here. Russian foreign policy is a lot different from Soviet foreign policy. Part of it involves choking Europe off from energy when they feel threatened. Part of it means not opposing the US everywhere just because it's the US. [QUOTE=Earthen;36622228] A genocidal dictator that the US supported literally 3 years before the gulf war. Are you really naive enough to believe that the US cared about human rights when it started the gulf war? Why else would the US only have deployed troops in Saudi Arabia and not invaded straight away. Why else did it take heavy lobbying from Kuwait to start the war? Why else would Bush Snr. all of a sudden start mentioning Iraqi human rights abuses after Kuwait had lobbied heavily? [/QUOTE] Ignoring the [url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/s2763]outrage[/url] from the chemical attacks when they became publicly known. Funny, though. At one point you decry the US for its 'lust for power', yes here you egg them on to immediately attack what was at the time the fourth largest military in the world with over one million standing servicemen. You seem to ignore [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_shield.htm]the buildup which was crucial to attain military partity[/url] and the fact that the legitimate Kuwaiti government had just been violently deposed, but that that somehow makes their 'lobbying' a bad thing because you attached a word with a negative connotation. You also like to ignore that Saudia Arabia asked the US for protection, Iraq tried to annex Kuwait, the arab league calling for no non-arab intervention, and that diplomatic means from condemnations to heavy sanctions were employed to force him out before the military campaign. In fact, you appear to ignore the entire political situation and run-up to the war. I also find your choice of grammar intriguing. How the US, "started the gulf war". So in all these things, the US was clearly striving towards selling weapons and sucking up all that oil. Because that's what nations do. They start wars that cost billions of dollars to fight for multi-[I]million[/I] dollar arms deals. I'll get back to the oil point in a moment. [quote]Yes you invaded Iraq because you were afraid that Saddam would jump at Saudi Arabia, which may only provide 12% of your oil, however, that oil is still crucial. http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised[/quote] " "Anybody who follows the oil industry will tell you that it doesn't make any difference where the oil comes from," says Keith Crane, an energy expert at RAND Corp." But obviously we "started" a billion dollar war to fight for an inconsequential slice of arabian oil, yes. Because all that other stuff didn't matter whatsoever. No politics were involved. Just that good old american greed for oil. [quote] Fun fact #1: Most of the alleged Iraqi war crimes were just make believe. [/quote] Let's hear it. Burden of proof is on you, by the way. [quote] Fun fact #2: The US supported Saddam when he was gassing the Kurds and the Iranians. [/quote] See [url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/s2763]here.[/url] [quote] Fun fact #3: The US sponsored uprisings against Saddam and then left the revolutionaries to die. [/quote] We (incorrectly) assumed they would topple his regime. They didn't. They lost a civil war. You think they expected anything else if they lost? Besides, had we gone back and fought a land war, occupying much of Iraq, you would sit here today bitching about the lust for "oil" we had, the massive casualties sustained, the futility of it all. [quote] Fun fact #4: US sanctions (on medicine, food, etc...) ended up killing 500,000 children. (Do you even understand how fucking many children that is? Do you have any idea?) [/quote] Yes... the [i]UN[/i] sanctions did cause hardships in Iraq. That is the entire point of sanctions. I would love to see your 500,000 [i]dead[/i] children number. PS: Starting a war is generally not conducive to your civilian population. This is a friendly service announcement by common sense. [quote] Fun fact #5: The US oil for food program was meant to help the Iraqi people, but the US continued bombing the oil wells so even if the people had been in power, they couldn't have gotten any food. [/quote] bitch at us for helping, bitch at us for fighting the war Either way I want a source on this. [quote] Yes of course I am going to scream at France for doing that, they are giving weapons to genocidal maniacs. I attack the US the most because it is the biggest and it also claims so very often that is protects the rights of humans. [/quote] Again, a marked demonstration of a COMPLETE lack of understanding of national policy. Read up on Israeli history, especially regarding Jerusalem. [quote] That was on a very small scale. [/quote] That's great, but: "[...] and it needs to have friendly governments in order to keep doing so." [FONT=Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, Verdana][COLOR=#333333]This is what you said. That is demonstrably wrong. You cannot defend that. Yet all this, all this - It is just an attack on US policy. It is not proving, arguing for, or anecdotally linking the US to "[/COLOR][/FONT] trying to preserve its interests in the region which are oil and weapons... and of course power." That is what you claimed. Back up your claims or get out. This is a thread about Iran closing the straights of Hormuz.

I want someone who legitimately believes that the US goes to these countries for oil to explain to me why we are having trouble paying for these wars if this oil is so profitable.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36623449]I want someone who legitimately believes that the US goes to these countries for oil to explain to me why we are having trouble paying for these wars if this oil is so profitable.[/QUOTE] I want one of these people to explain how the concept of a profitable government works

[QUOTE=scout1;36623173]Let me first, requote you earthen "The fuck is wrong with you people? The US is trying to preserve its interests in the region which are oil and weapons... and of course power. Yeah Saudi Arabia has oil and that is exactly why the US has a constant troop presence there and turns a blind eye to all the shit that Saudi Arabia does." I'll be revisiting that quote several times in this post. ...Russian native oil. Natural gas and uranium, too. Korea? Vietnam? Are you talking about the cold war, son? We're talking 21st century, here. Russian foreign policy is a lot different from Soviet foreign policy. Part of it involves choking Europe off from energy when they feel threatened. Part of it means not opposing the US everywhere just because it's the US. [/QUOTE] You clearly have not read anything about Soviet foreign policy. Soviet foreign policy was essentially limited sovereignty in that the Soviet Union wanted to protect itself from perceived enemies and in most cases that was the West. If its Russian resources than why are they in Syria? [quote]Ignoring the [URL="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/s2763"]outrage[/URL] from the chemical attacks when they became publicly known. Funny, though. At one point you decry the US for its 'lust for power', yes here you egg them on to immediately attack what was at the time the fourth largest military in the world with over one million standing servicemen. You seem to ignore [URL="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_shield.htm"]the buildup which was crucial to attain military partity[/URL] and the fact that the legitimate Kuwaiti government had just been violently deposed, but that that somehow makes their 'lobbying' a bad thing because you attached a word with a negative connotation.[/quote] 'Egg them on'? When have I said anything like that? Intervention on some scale would have been alright, obviously not the slaughter that the US carried out, but the other method which they tried; getting the people to rise up, which they did and then were left to die by the US. The lobbying was wrong because the US did not care about Kuwait until there was heavy lobbying. [quote]You also like to ignore that Saudia Arabia asked the US for protection, Iraq tried to annex Kuwait, the arab league calling for no non-arab intervention, and that diplomatic means from condemnations to heavy sanctions were employed to force him out before the military campaign. In fact, you appear to ignore the entire political situation and run-up to the war. I also find your choice of grammar intriguing. How the US, "started the gulf war". [/quote] The Saudi government is a theocratic, autocratic monarchy. It hardly represents the wants and needs of the people, surely you as Mr. Freedom would understand. Do you think Saudi Arabia really cared about the Kuwaitis? Or more about not letting Saddam get too much power, remember, Saudi Arabia financed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Also, the Saudis only wanted US troops not for the US to actually intervene as evident by their demands that Saudis lead the forces. Since we're on the topic of liberation. The US version of liberation was to destroy Iraq so totally and to not care at all what the Kuwaitis actually did. The US dropped as many bombs on Iraq as were dropped every day during the wars with Germany and Japan, a bombing campaign in which they bombed hospitals, schools, industry, etc... Then there was of course the highway of death. Or what about the Kuwaiti expulsion of the Palestinians when the rich autocrats came back. Its okay to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, but not from its other oppressors? You also never commented on the fact that the US sponsored uprising in Iraq and then left the people to die. Richard Dowden, a journalist, asked some Iraqi rebels about the situation and they said - "The Americans are not helping us. They stop us on the road and take our weapons. It is they who helped build up Saddam, then they destroyed him, now the war is over and they will support him again." And why did the US only liberate Kuwait and not the Kurds who had suffered much, much more under Saddam than the Kuwaitis? Or what about Mutla ridge? Sure that seems a bit excessive considering these were retreating soldiers... How about when George Bush said "We have no argument with the people of Iraq, but with the brutal dictator in Baghdad" and then hundreds upon thousands of Iraqis died from hunger and starvation because of the war? [quote]So in all these things, the US was clearly striving towards selling weapons and sucking up all that oil. Because that's what nations do. They start wars that cost billions of dollars to fight for multi-[I]million[/I] dollar arms deals. I'll get back to the oil point in a moment. [/quote] You see the war is a one time payment, but the multi-[I]billion [/I]dollar arms deals can be renewed. [quote]" "Anybody who follows the oil industry will tell you that it doesn't make any difference where the oil comes from," says Keith Crane, an energy expert at RAND Corp." But obviously we "started" a billion dollar war to fight for an inconsequential slice of arabian oil, yes. Because all that other stuff didn't matter whatsoever. No politics were involved. Just that good old american greed for oil.[/quote] Not an inconsequential slice of Arabian oil, Iraq has massive oil reserves and if they were to cease supplying oil to wherever, it would have an impact of global oil prices because there would be less supply. You forgot that good old American greed for money. [quote]Let's hear it. Burden of proof is on you, by the way.[/quote] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_a_Free_Kuwait[/URL] - "ABC News reporter interviewed hospital doctors who stayed in Kuwait throughout the Iraqi occupation and indicated that the story was almost certainly false. Subsequent investigation showed that, unknown to most members of the Caucus, the 15-year-old Kuwait girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah." [quote]See [URL="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/s2763"]here.[/URL][/quote] Yeah, but there was no military intervention there, how come? The Kurds were being gassed even when Saddam was the US' little best friend. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack[/URL] [quote]We (incorrectly) assumed they would topple his regime. They didn't. They lost a civil war. You think they expected anything else if they lost? Besides, had we gone back and fought a land war, occupying much of Iraq, you would sit here today bitching about the lust for "oil" we had, the massive casualties sustained, the futility of it all.[/quote] They couldn't topple his regime ALONE. Then the Kuwaitis should have been left alone right? You did fight a land war, as well as an air war... it resulted in 200,000 Iraqi casualties. [quote]Yes... the [I]UN[/I] sanctions did cause hardships in Iraq. That is the entire point of sanctions. I would love to see your 500,000 [I]dead[/I] children number. PS: Starting a war is generally not conducive to your civilian population. This is a friendly service announcement by common sense.[/quote] Hardships? You're fucking saying they were 'hardships'? So sanctions are meant to harm innocent people as much as possible, fuck you must be doing PHDs in poli sci at Yale, Harvard and Princeton simultaneously. Here are the sources: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq[/URL] [URL]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/[/URL] - "Later, UNICEF came out with the first authoritative report (8/99), based on a survey of 24,000 households, suggesting that the total “excess” deaths of children under 5 was about 500,000. " - "U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions." [quote]bitch at us for helping, bitch at us for fighting the war Either way I want a source on this. [/quote] I am angry at the US because when they try to help, they either to do it for the wrong reasons or help the wrong people. I am angry at the US when they start wars because so often the wars cause only the death of innocents and the destruction of legitimate governments. So turns out it wasn't oil wells, just hospitals and such. [URL]http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq38.html[/URL] - "Anglo-American air raids commenced by destroying civilian structures: flattening an agricultural school, damaging at least a dozen other schools and hospitals, and knocking out water supplies for 300,000 people in Baghdad, as reported by the UN. This included the annihilation of a large storehouse in Tikrit, filled with 2,600 tonnes of rice. A maternity hospital, a teaching hospital and an outpatients’ clinic were also damaged, as well as parts of the Health Ministry. As for the cutting off of water supplies to 300,000 civilians, this was accomplished when a cruise missile destroyed one of the main water systems in Karrada, a Baghdad suburb." As for your claims that the US cared about Kuwait, read through this: [URL]http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm[/URL] - "The U.S. showed no opposition to Iraq's increasing threats against Kuwait. U.S. companies sought major contracts in Iraq. The Congress approved agricultural loan subsidies to Iraq of hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit U.S. farmers. However, loans for food deliveries of rice, corn, wheat and other essentials bought almost exclusively from the U.S. were cut off in the spring of 1990 to cause shortages. Arms were sold to Iraq by U.S. manufacturers. When Saddam Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain State Department testimony in Congress about lraq's threats against Kuwait, she assured him the U.S. considered the dispute a regional concern, and it would not intervene. By these acts, the U.S. intended to lead Iraq into a provocation justifying war." It's corroborated by [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#Meetings_with_Saddam_Hussein[/URL] [quote]Again, a marked demonstration of a COMPLETE lack of understanding of national policy. Read up on Israeli history, especially regarding Jerusalem.[/quote] Wait you support Israel too? Wow, you must understand that situation completely too. Tell me, how are the Palestinians doing? [quote]That's great, but: "[...] and it needs to have friendly governments in order to keep doing so." [FONT=Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, Verdana][COLOR=#333333]This is what you said. That is demonstrably wrong. You cannot defend that. Yet all this, all this - It is just an attack on US policy. It is not proving, arguing for, or anecdotally linking the US to "[/COLOR][/FONT] trying to preserve its interests in the region which are oil and weapons... and of course power." That is what you claimed. Back up your claims or get out. This is a thread about Iran closing the straights of Hormuz.[/quote] Let me explain it fully since you can't think for yourself. The arms sold during the Iran-Contra deal were in much smaller amounts than those regularly sold to dictatorial regimes around the world. They were part of a back-door deal, not one that is made public to the world. The US needs friendly governments in order to sell large quantities of weapons because small quantities go unnoticed, but large ones don't. Yeah this is a thread about Iran closing the Straights of Hormuz, and I stated my opinion on the matter. Now respond with some sensible fucking answers or 'get out'. [editline]4th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boxbot219;36623449]I want someone who legitimately believes that the US goes to these countries for oil to explain to me why we are having trouble paying for these wars if this oil is so profitable.[/QUOTE] Wars use up more money than oil can generate. The oil matters in the long run for the US.

[QUOTE=Earthen;36622228] Fun fact #6: The US supplied weaponry to Saddam and the chemicals needed for the gas during the Iran-Iraq war. [/QUOTE] Fun fact #7: France built and maintained Iraqi nuclear reactors. Italy gave Iraq 75,000 rockets designed to carry chemical weapons and plutonium extraction equipment. Italy also supplied Iraq with uranium. The Swiss gave Iraq uranium refining equipment that was capable of reaching weapons grade. Brazil gave Iraq 100 tons of mustard gas and some uranium dioxide without notifying the IAEA. The British gave Iraq money and parts for its weapon program. Singapore gave Iraq 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gas. The Dutch gave Iraq 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gas. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave Iraq 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gas. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare. Better get angry at these countries too before you jump aboard the US hate train.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;36624282]Fun fact #7: France built and maintained Iraqi nuclear reactors. Italy gave Iraq 75,000 rockets designed to carry chemical weapons and plutonium extraction equipment. Italy also supplied Iraq with uranium. The Swiss gave Iraq uranium refining equipment that was capable of reaching weapons grade. Brazil gave Iraq 100 tons of mustard gas and some uranium dioxide without notifying the IAEA. The British gave Iraq money and parts for its weapon program. Singapore gave Iraq 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gas. The Dutch gave Iraq 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gas. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave Iraq 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gas. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare. Better get angry at these countries too before you jump aboard the US hate train.[/QUOTE] Did I ever say I was alright with what those countries did? No. I simply attack the US the most because they are the biggest offender.

Fun fact #8 only facts that are fun are in this thread

[QUOTE=Earthen;36624633]Did I ever say I was alright with what those countries did? No. I simply attack the US the most because they are the biggest offender.[/QUOTE] But your singling the U.S. out for something that a whole multitude of nations participated in, some more than the U.S.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;36626518]But your singling the U.S. out for something that a whole multitude of nations participated in, some more than the U.S.[/QUOTE] Back it up buddy. I'm not singling out the US, I never I blamed the US solely for it.

[QUOTE=Earthen;36622228] Fun fact #6: The US supplied weaponry to Saddam and [B]the chemicals needed for the gas[/B] during the Iran-Iraq war.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36623449]I want someone who legitimately believes that the US goes to these countries for oil to explain to me why we are having trouble paying for these wars if this oil is so profitable.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company[/url] You imbecile.

[QUOTE=Combineguy;36617859]it's funny because you're generalizing the republican population[/QUOTE] It's a political party, and political parties are formed to further their ideals, so generalizing them based on those ideals is fair.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36623449]I want someone who legitimately believes that the US goes to these countries for oil to explain to me why we are having trouble paying for these wars if this oil is so profitable.[/QUOTE] They don't understand what a war economy is, or the fact we've been on one more than 8 times in our existence.

[QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] 'Egg them on'? When have I said anything like that? Intervention on some scale would have been alright, obviously not the slaughter that the US carried out, but the other method which they tried; getting the people to rise up, which they did and then were left to die by the US. The lobbying was wrong because the US did not care about Kuwait until there was heavy lobbying. The Saudi government is a theocratic, autocratic monarchy. It hardly represents the wants and needs of the people, surely you as Mr. Freedom would understand. Do you think Saudi Arabia really cared about the Kuwaitis? Or more about not letting Saddam get too much power, remember, Saudi Arabia financed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Also, the Saudis only wanted US troops not for the US to actually intervene as evident by their demands that Saudis lead the forces. Since we're on the topic of liberation. The US version of liberation was to destroy Iraq so totally and to not care at all what the Kuwaitis actually did. The US dropped as many bombs on Iraq as were dropped every day during the wars with Germany and Japan, a bombing campaign in which they bombed hospitals, schools, industry, etc... Then there was of course the highway of death. Or what about the Kuwaiti expulsion of the Palestinians when the rich autocrats came back. Its okay to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, but not from its other oppressors? [/QUOTE] See, this is the kind of shit that makes you look like an idiot. Cry that the US "isn't fighting for human rights", and when they persecute a [B]war[/B] to its fully extent and end it in one decapitating attack rather than a 4 month long struggle, you paint us as the bad guys. Yes, we fought a fucking war! Yes, we bombed them as they retreated! In fact, we killed nearly all those who did not surrender! THAT IS A WAR. PEOPLE DIE. LOTS OF PEOPLE. When you balk up against the railing, demanding an intervention - This is what happens. [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] The Saudi government is a theocratic, autocratic monarchy. It hardly represents the wants and needs of the people, surely you as Mr. Freedom would understand. Do you think Saudi Arabia really cared about the Kuwaitis? Or more about not letting Saddam get too much power, remember, Saudi Arabia financed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. Also, the Saudis only wanted US troops not for the US to actually intervene as evident by their demands that Saudis lead the forces. Since we're on the topic of liberation. The US version of liberation was to destroy Iraq so totally and to not care at all what the Kuwaitis actually did. The US dropped as many bombs on Iraq as were dropped every day during the wars with Germany and Japan, a bombing campaign in which they bombed hospitals, schools, industry, etc... Then there was of course the highway of death. Or what about the Kuwaiti expulsion of the Palestinians when the rich autocrats came back. Its okay to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, but not from its other oppressors? [/QUOTE] I'm Mr. Freedom because I'm arguing the US is not a malevolent overlord. Meanwhile, you are decrying the US for this apparent disregard of human rights, but you refrain from referring to yourself by such a mocking title. Thanks for the ad hom. And in the following sentences, you completely disregard the politics, the political "lobbying" that you so paint as bad, and then claim the US wanted "to destroy Iraq so totally".... But we want the fucking oil!? We can't take oil from a pile of nuclear rubble. Nor a bombed out building. Nor a burning well. But you so wildly veer back and forth with your arguments, it's hard to tell exactly WHAT you're arguing except venting a constant dislike for the US without examining any of the situations it has been in. And then you compare a targetted bombing campaign (Iraq) to a strategic bombing campaign (Germany and Japan) designed to destroy cities. That's fucking nice. and then again, ignoring the situation or politics. It's like saying "Oh my god the US nuked hiroshima OH MY GOD" and failing to mention that entire war thing going on. [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] You also never commented on the fact that the US sponsored uprising in Iraq and then left the people to die. Richard Dowden, a journalist, asked some Iraqi rebels about the situation and they said - "The Americans are not helping us. They stop us on the road and take our weapons. It is they who helped build up Saddam, then they destroyed him, now the war is over and they will support him again." And why did the US only liberate Kuwait and not the Kurds who had suffered much, much more under Saddam than the Kuwaitis? Or what about Mutla ridge? Sure that seems a bit excessive considering these were retreating soldiers... [/QUOTE] Oh shit guys - people are upset they're no longer getting support. WHAT A SHOCK and back to a land war inside Iraq. If we conquered Iraq and hoisted a kurdish banner you'd be having a fit over our apparent seizure of oil, but when we let the internal elements of the country sort it out by itself we're monsters. Because, you know, we DIDN'T send our boys overseas just to die. Finally, no. I do not see it excessive to bomb [i]retreating[/i] troops. One who makes it back to his lines fights another day. The Geneva convention places no protections upon them, nor does the old gentlemen rules of war, nor does common sense. Do you understand what a war is?? [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] How about when George Bush said "We have no argument with the people of Iraq, but with the brutal dictator in Baghdad" and then hundreds upon thousands of Iraqis died from hunger and starvation because of the war? You see the war is a one time payment, but the multi-billion dollar arms deals can be renewed. Not an inconsequential slice of Arabian oil, Iraq has massive oil reserves and if they were to cease supplying oil to wherever, it would have an impact of global oil prices because there would be less supply. You forgot that good old American greed for money. [/QUOTE] >still not understanding what war is >still blaming the US for everything that happened in a UN intervention >still attributing all events after the war to the war yes so clearly we fought a war against saddam so that we could [i]let saddam remain in power[/i] using his [i]primarily soviet built tanks, AKs, RPG- type weapons, BMP APCs [/i] and then after all that we SUBSIDIZED Israel to buy our shit (at a loss) because you know, we just love exporting tanks and stuff and it makes us SO MUCH MONEY (In reality less than 1% of the budget) oh now we want MONEY too. let's start a checklist of what you've claimed: ~US OVERLORD CHECKLIST~ Oil: check Money: check power: check REALLY BAD PEOPLE: check [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_a_Free_Kuwait[/url] - "ABC News reporter interviewed hospital doctors who stayed in Kuwait throughout the Iraqi occupation and indicated that the story was almost certainly false. Subsequent investigation showed that, unknown to most members of the Caucus, the 15-year-old Kuwait girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah." [/QUOTE] Good you got the really obvious one (I am proud of you) now the others, please? [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] Yeah, but there was no military intervention there, how come? The Kurds were being gassed even when Saddam was the US' little best friend. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack[/url] [/QUOTE] jesus christ we just can't win with you can we. Ridicule the fella in the senate, cry out about his genocide and apparently we *love him* but that's not good enough no we need to intervene militarily so earthen here can fulfill his life by crying about how we're oil whores [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] They couldn't topple his regime ALONE. Then the Kuwaitis should have been left alone right? You did fight a land war, as well as an air war... it resulted in 200,000 Iraqi casualties. [/QUOTE] This makes no sense. You bitch that we don't intervene. You bitch we do intervene. Two sentences right next to each other. and then arguing against reestablishing the sovereign government of Kuwait, ignoring the human rights that you are so attacking the US for disregarding And yes. The Iraqis did lose a lot of men. That is kind of the point. However the number is [url=http://www.webcitation.org/5kwqMXGNZ]more like 35,000 at best[/url]. I mean sure you're ignoring coalition casualties but hey yeah we shoulda just piddlied up there and worked the Iraqis over with a gentle hand, because that's how you prosecute wars. [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] Hardships? You're fucking saying they were 'hardships'? So sanctions are meant to harm innocent people as much as possible, fuck you must be doing PHDs in poli sci at Yale, Harvard and Princeton simultaneously. [/QUOTE] Why yes I am studying political science as a matter of fact. Fun fact #1: This means I am tasked with actually understanding a political decision before opposing it. [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] Here are the sources: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq[/url] [url]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084/[/url] - "Later, UNICEF came out with the first authoritative report (8/99), based on a survey of 24,000 households, suggesting that the total “excess” deaths of children under 5 was about 500,000. " - "U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions." [/QUOTE] >citing wikipedia not the actual citations themselves >ignoring the other reports that detract from your argument >ignoring the lack of good scientific data [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] I am angry at the US because when they try to help, they either to do it for the wrong reasons or help the wrong people. I am angry at the US when they start wars because so often the wars cause only the death of innocents and the destruction of legitimate governments. So turns out it wasn't oil wells, just hospitals and such. [url]http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq38.html[/url] - "Anglo-American air raids commenced by destroying civilian structures: flattening an agricultural school, damaging at least a dozen other schools and hospitals, and knocking out water supplies for 300,000 people in Baghdad, as reported by the UN. This included the annihilation of a large storehouse in Tikrit, filled with 2,600 tonnes of rice. A maternity hospital, a teaching hospital and an outpatients’ clinic were also damaged, as well as parts of the Health Ministry. As for the cutting off of water supplies to 300,000 civilians, this was accomplished when a cruise missile destroyed one of the main water systems in Karrada, a Baghdad suburb." [/QUOTE] US WHY DON'T YOU HELP PEOPLE US WHY ARE YOU HELPING PEOPLE Also remember kids. The US started the gulf war. Remain when we invaded Kuwait? That was some bitching shit. >hospitals Okay so even if this is true (and I will not deign to fighting about your silly conservative sources) that is the end of your argument right there. That means your argument against our aid is bullshit. great! also >not understanding how bombs work [quote]As for your claims that the US cared about Kuwait, read through this: [url]http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm[/url] - "The U.S. showed no opposition to Iraq's increasing threats against Kuwait. U.S. companies sought major contracts in Iraq. The Congress approved agricultural loan subsidies to Iraq of hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit U.S. farmers. However, loans for food deliveries of rice, corn, wheat and other essentials bought almost exclusively from the U.S. were cut off in the spring of 1990 to cause shortages. Arms were sold to Iraq by U.S. manufacturers. When Saddam Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain State Department testimony in Congress about lraq's threats against Kuwait, she assured him the U.S. considered the dispute a regional concern, and it would not intervene. By these acts, the U.S. intended to lead Iraq into a provocation justifying war." It's corroborated by [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie#Meetings_with_Saddam_Hussein[/url] [/QUOTE] Seriously this is your silver bullet The US... let's get this straight - The US, while private companies sold weapons (and the US itself failed to secure an arms deal), and the senate approved farm subsidies to benefit their country (WHICH, PS, IS THEIR JOB), the ambassador mispoke to a genocidal dicator. And that is how the US planned to gain millions of billions of dollars and all the world's oil ...Seriously? Seriously? That is your accusation. Through some inane rune goldberg type of conspiracy WE INITIATED AN ATTACK ON THE WORLD'S OIL SUPPLY IN ORDER TO BOMB IT IN ORDER TO LOSE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ORDER TO GAIN NOTHING I can't believe I didn't see this before. Thank you for enlightening me. Rah rah, down with the US. [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] Wait you support Israel too? Wow, you must understand that situation completely too. Tell me, how are the Palestinians doing? [/QUOTE] I don't support ethnic resettlement, no, but I do look at history before opening my big mouth (something you should learn to do) [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] Let me explain it fully since you can't think for yourself. The arms sold during the Iran-Contra deal were in much smaller amounts than those regularly sold to dictatorial regimes around the world. They were part of a back-door deal, not one that is made public to the world. The US needs friendly governments in order to sell large quantities of weapons because small quantities go unnoticed, but large ones don't. [/QUOTE] HERE HERE KIDS I'M A US PUPPET WITH NO FREE WILL plz give us your oil also your money and power finally and thusly: >unnoticed >unnoticed >unnoticed >Iran-fucking-contra >unnoticed [QUOTE=Earthen;36624221] Wars use up more money than oil can generate. The oil matters in the long run for the US. [/QUOTE] "I have no idea what the US budget looks like" Hint, hint: It's publicly available. And thus we get to the end of what was a really fun ride, sort of kind of like trying to saw through your own bone. With that over: This double standard deceitful crap serves to argue no point. I will not be replying to your [i]speculation[/i] unless you can produce a current US diplomatic or military cable that states or implies that the US is defending the straits solely for oil - which was your entire argument in the first place.

Iran hates us because we overthrew their democratically elected leader who wanted to nationalize oil production after getting screwed over in some bad deals. Really, any problems Iran is having right now is because of us when you think about it. Iran was a up and coming country with a decent standard of living in the 50's before their population elected anti-western goons.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;36621324]It could also possibly lead to local economies around military bases collapsing..?[/QUOTE] People with common sense know why the US are there. It's power and resources, and nothing else. Leave those fucking countries alone.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;36629565]Iran hates us because we overthrew their democratically elected leader who wanted to nationalize oil production after getting screwed over in some bad deals. Really, any problems Iran is having right now is because of us when you think about it. Iran was a up and coming country with a decent standard of living in the 50's before their population elected anti-western goons.[/QUOTE] It wasn't even really our show. It was the Brits at the helm. The overwhelming majority of the oil was heading to the UK. It was even Brits on the ground doing the legwork. Aside from offering arms and training afterwards, I'm not even sure how we were involved in any sort of direct capacity.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.