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

[QUOTE=GunFox;36629992]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.[/QUOTE] The CIA organized the coup.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;36630047]The CIA organized the coup.[/QUOTE] The CIA's document was released, and so their involvement is best understood and publicized, but it is also a very small part. The Brits were at the helm. It was British oil. The American interest was merely as far as keeping them from being communist. A problem which we didn't even agree on internally.

If Iran continues their dick-waving with everyone: [QUOTE][IMG]http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon/Crater_Earth.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] (Image in quote since its so friggen big) Atleast thats what I think, with all the countries surrounding Iran at the moment being aganst them.

[QUOTE=GunFox;36630216]The CIA's document was released, and so their involvement is best understood and publicized, but it is also a very small part. The Brits were at the helm. It was British oil. The American interest was merely as far as keeping them from being communist. A problem which we didn't even agree on internally.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's American bias but on the wiki page for the 1953 Iranian Coup MI6 isn't even mentioned. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat[/url]

[QUOTE=Fenderson;36630259]MI6 isn't even mentioned.[/QUOTE] Uh, you might want to recheck that. (And I checked, the page hasn't been changed in 3 days)

[QUOTE=BMCHa;36630337]Uh, you might want to recheck that. (And I checked, the page hasn't been changed in 3 days)[/QUOTE] I rechecked. I missed the one mentioning.

I want more Fun Facts!!

[QUOTE=Medevilae;36630527]Here is a fun way to enlighten yourself [URL]http://store.steampowered.com/app/95700/[/URL][/QUOTE] Hey now this is pretty cool

[QUOTE=Chernarus;36621090]You are over there for oil, you aren't in Canada because you tried doing it in 1812, but got your whitehouse burn't down instead.[/QUOTE] Also I would like to add, you never even took over DC. You started to burn the white house and the town when your captains were too fucking retarded to leave before the hurricane smashed through and ended up losing half your fleet when the flames were doused by the rain. Congrats nice victory.

[QUOTE=scout1;36628733]words[/QUOTE] have my children

[QUOTE=scout1;36628733]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] They were retreating troops you dumbshit. You do not making consistent bombing runs on retreating troops. So for the ends justify the means. I mean the US did get Saddam out eventually... at the cost of hundreds upon thousands of Iraqi lives. There are different kinds of intervention, you know like supplying arms, moral support, monetary support, basic needs support, etc... Why didn't the US supply arms to the Iraqi people when they rose up? [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.[/quote] Ad hom? This entire thread you've been calling me a bitch, don't even try that. Okay since we're talking about human rights, how about the time the US supported the Khmer Rouge as it was murdering millions? [URL]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB193/HAK-11-26-75.pdf[/URL] Kissinger: "You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won't let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them." Or how about Rwanda? [URL]http://archive2.globalsolutions.org/issues/veto[/URL] - "In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the U.N. peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements.... The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective." [URL]http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2236/rwandas-savior-has-become-a-monster/[/URL] corroborated by [URL]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/interviews/albright.html[/URL] - “Madeline Albright was directed to inform the U.N. Security Council that, no, we would not reconstitute the U.N. peacekeeping force in Rwanda, and, further, the United States would veto any resolution that authorized other countries to do so.“ [URL]http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37572[/URL] - “The United States today vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning all Israeli settlements established in occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 as illegal, saying that while it agreed that the settlements are illegitimate the resolution harmed chances for peace talks." Then there was the massive increase in child cancer rates in areas that were shelled heavily by DU ammunitions. Have you ever been to one of the understaffed, underfunded, and undersupplied childrens' hospitals in Iraq? Or when the Algerian Civil War resulted in 200,000 dead, all because the government couldn't accept the results of the election. If the US cares so much about human rights, why did it do these things? [quote]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.[/quote] Please stop taking things out of context and blowing my arguments out of proportion, its just sad. As I showed before, the US had no interest in Kuwait before the war until heavy lobbying from Kuwait, however, Saudi oil fields needed protection and the US jumped right on it. This is also a demonstration of US hypocrisy. [quote]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] Well doesn't it seem strange to you that a country that is supposedly defending human rights is dropping as many bombs all over Iraq as it did over German and Japanese territories? [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] So you support US intervention as long as it is direct military intervention and then the US has full control, right? Yeah because that would be annexation of conquered territories, which is sorta wrong. Not to mention the fact that there are different kinds of intervention. The US should have supplied arms and logistical support to the people of Iraq when they rose up against Saddam. However, they didn't. Why is it okay to defend Kuwait, but NOT the Iraqi people? Sorry, you're right, war is just about killing and how many you kill. You must be a genius, which wars did you lead forces in? When men are broken and retreating, throwing down their arms, then it is pretty much human decency to let the live or maybe just capture them. Of course for you, the American lives are the most important, not those dirty, smelly Arabs. [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'[/quote] Listen up armchair general, I don't care what your definition of war is, but there is no fucking reason why innocent people should die. Sorry, I'll blame the coalition forces, doesn't change anything though. [quote]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] You fought a war against him because you cared more about Saudi Arabia than you did about Iraq. You do realise that the US sells the weapons of other countries too right? Yeah its mostly private companies that sell the arms and they all make a profit. They also lobby the US government heavily to have the US assert its power over the region so the companies can keep selling arms there at a huge profit. [quote]Good you got the really obvious one (I am proud of you) now the others, please?[/quote] What? [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] How are you not understanding that the US fully supported Saddam up till the First Gulf War? Why didn't the US invade Iraq straight away instead of spending 5 months building up a troop presence in Saudi Arabia to protect Saudi oil fields? [URL]http://www.merip.org/mer/mer171/oil-gulf-war[/URL] - "The Bush administration was less concerned about any modest increase in the price of oil than about the prospect of strong Iraqi influence over the oil policies of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies. The crisis once more underscored Saudi Arabia’s unique position: even the total boycott of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil was of little consequence to the world economy as long as the Saudis boosted their output to compensate for the supply loss. Leaving Iraq in a position to influence the Gulf monarchies, though, might have jeopardized Riyadh’s ability to moderate prices." [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] What you said was that the Iraqi rebels had to do it alone, but then you scream and shout that Kuwait had to be saved even though Saddam had committed far more human rights abuses towards Iraqi people than Kuwaiti people. So you don't feel anything towards all those maimed Iraqis lying dead in the desert? Nor do you feel anything for all the children who died as a result of sanctions? Iraqi casualties sit at around 100,000 in total, that is still a very large number. Coalition casualties were extremely small. [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] You never responded to my question about sanctions, instead you just attacked me personally. [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] Wait so UNICEF is lying about the deaths of children? Show me the credible reports from impartial observes that state otherwise. [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] Its amazing, its as if you don't feel anything for the innocent Iraqi women and children who died. You're like a holocaust apologist. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Coalition_bombing_of_Iraq.27s_civilian_infrastructure[/URL] - “Iraqis understood the legitimacy of a military action to drive their army from Kuwait, but they have had difficulty comprehending the Allied rationale for using air power to systematically destroy or cripple Iraqi infrastructure and industry: electric power stations (92 percent of installed capacity destroyed), refineries (80 percent of production capacity), petrochemical complexes, telecommunications centers (including 135 telephone networks), bridges (more than 100), roads, highways, railroads, hundreds of locomotives and boxcars full of goods, radio and television broadcasting stations, cement plants, and factories producing aluminum, textiles, electric cables, and medical supplies." [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing[/URL] So much for the US caring about human rights. Oh and why didn't the US do anything about Kuwait expelling 450,000 Palestinians? [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] She didn't misspeak, she said clearly that the US had no interest in Kuwait. The world's oil supply? What are you on about. Look, the US was originally in Saudi Arabia to protect Saudi oil wells, and spent 5 months sitting on their asses while Saddam invaded Kuwait. Now why didn't the US invade Kuwait straight away if it cared about Kuwaiti human rights? Why else would the US fly over 500,000 troops to Saudi Arabia other than to protect the oil fields there. [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] You really want to start an argument about Israel? You clearly do not understand the situation if you think its only about ethnic resettlement. It also means that you should be attacking Kuwait for doing the same thing. [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] The US trades around 6 billion dollars worth of arms each year. The Iran-Contra deal involved 96 TOW missiles, which cost about 180,000 dollars. The total cost of the trade was 17 million dollars. Do the math. [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.[/quote] Jesus fucking christ, I showed you the report for April Glaspie that showed quite clearly that the US had no interest in the Gulf other than protecting Saudi Arabia. You really think I have access to every US diplomatic and military cable? I can only make observations based on the US' refusal to save Kuwait straight away and the US' acceptance of Saddam's intentions. I can also only make observations based on Saudi Arabia who wanted help from the US to protect its oil fields. [URL]http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/159089/Operation-Desert-Shield[/URL] - "King Fahd requested American military protection for his country." Of course there was also the Carter Doctrine which meant that the US had to defend its 'national interests' in the Middle-East. What could those interests be? However, I can also cite senior USG officials such as Kenneth Pollack who said: - "He [would] use this power to advance Iraq's political interests, even to the detriment of its economic interests and the world's... If Saddam Hussein were ever to control the Persian Gulf oil resources, his past record suggests that he would be willing to cut or even halt oil exports altogether whenever it suited him, in order to force concessions from his fellow Arabs, Europe, the United States, or the world as a whole." What other interests does the US actually have in the Gulf other than oil and weapons. Why doesn't the US prosecute Bahrain and Saudi Arabia for human rights abuses? Why doesn't the US prosecute Kuwait for its expulsion of Palestinians? Why doesn't the US attempt to prosecute Chavez for his alleged abuses? Oil my friend, the US ignores bad things when there is oil involved because the US government needs to have as much control over the oil fields as possible to ensure that US companies can make a killing at the expense of the US government, the US people, The Arabs and everybody else. Also why didn't the US do anything about Rwanda? Actually, do you think that US foreign policy has in general been a force for good in the world in the past 60 years?

Hey, how much oil have we got from Iraq since invading? Oh right, chicken shit worth. What about Afghanistan? Yeah, None, because they don't export any. Vietnam? World War 2? Korean War? World War 1? Desert Storm? This whole US Goes to war only for Oil argument is stupid and makes no sense. We go to war for dumb reasons, not smart ones. I wish we did take the oil

[QUOTE=TheTalon;36632500]Hey, how much oil have we got from Iraq since invading? Oh right, chicken shit worth. What about Afghanistan? Yeah, None, because they don't export any. Vietnam? World War 2? Korean War? World War 1? Desert Storm? This whole US Goes to war only for Oil argument is stupid and makes no sense. We go to war for dumb reasons, not smart ones. I wish we did take the oil[/QUOTE] Nobody here has said they only go to war for oil. They go to war for a lot of reasons, most of the time they are all bad.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36631920]Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean you cant single out specific problem-makers, especially since [B]the US is largely responsible[/B] for most of those given that they have the largest global influence of any nation on earth.[/QUOTE] My entire point is that the US participated in assisting Iraq's WMD development, but did not instigate it or even play the largest role, yet the US takes all the blame and is deemed responsible.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;36633488]My entire point is that the US participated in assisting Iraq's WMD development, but did not instigate it or even play the largest role, yet the US takes all the blame and is deemed responsible.[/QUOTE] If I sold you the gun to go kill someone and I knew what you were going to use the gun for, am I innocent?

Oh NATO can go fuck itself with a 15 ton mining drill, can't they see that the more they "prepare" for whatever Iran may do, the more it forces them to act?

[QUOTE=Earthen;36633599]If I sold you the gun to go kill someone and I knew what you were going to use the gun for, am I innocent?[/QUOTE] As innocent as any gun shop that sells more than hunting and sports rifles.

[QUOTE=smeismastger;36634198]Oh NATO can go fuck itself with a 15 ton mining drill, can't they see that the more they "prepare" for whatever Iran may do, the more it forces them to act?[/QUOTE] They're planning to close the Straight. History tells us that the US loves something known as freedom of navigation.

[QUOTE=Apache249;36634363]They're planning to close the Straight. History tells us that the US loves something known as freedom of navigation.[/QUOTE] Iran loves freedom of trade and hates sanctions. Nobody is the 'good guy' here.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36634204]As innocent as any gun shop that sells more than hunting and sports rifles.[/QUOTE] Do gunshops know the intentions of the buyer?

[QUOTE=Earthen;36633599]If I sold you the gun to go kill someone and I knew what you were going to use the gun for, am I innocent?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Earthen;36631871] There are different kinds of intervention, you know like supplying arms, moral support, monetary support, basic needs support, etc... [B]Why didn't the US supply arms to the Iraqi people when they rose up?[/B] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36637175][/QUOTE] Um you missed the point entirely there buddy. The Iraqi people rose up for their freedom and violence was justified a that point. The US sellling weapons to Saddam to kill his own people was not...

Iraqi freedom - 100% justifiable via violence Kuwaiti freedom - OMG wtf are you doin US stop trying to take all the oil -earthen 2012

[QUOTE=Earthen;36637220]Um you missed the point entirely there buddy. The Iraqi people rose up for their freedom and violence was justified a that point. The US sellling weapons to Saddam to kill his own people was not...[/QUOTE] Because all the other times we sent weapons to random insurgent groups they worked out just fine right? - Guys you know that thing we did that largely got us into this mess? - Yeah? - We should do it again!

Diplomacy is the ONLY option I see. We can't afford to exert ourselves anymore.

[QUOTE=scout1;36637258]Iraqi freedom - 100% justifiable via violence Kuwaiti freedom - OMG wtf are you doin US stop trying to take all the oil -earthen 2012[/QUOTE] I'm not going to comment on what you said until you answer my questions. [editline]5th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=zakedodead;36637277]Because all the other times we sent weapons to random insurgent groups they worked out just fine right? - Guys you know that thing we did that largely got us into this mess? - Yeah? - We should do it again![/QUOTE] Random insurgent groups? These were Iraqi people fighting for their freedom and you didn't give them anything.

[QUOTE=Earthen;36638085] Random insurgent groups? These were Iraqi people fighting for their freedom and you didn't give them anything.[/QUOTE] Just like when we gave Afghani's weapons or the iran-contra bullshit right?

[QUOTE=ewitwins;36616077]Again, no, it's not. They're two completely different regions with two completely different geopolitical situations. North Korea will probably "condemn the imperialistic agenda" of the United States and her allies, rattle it's sabre a few times, and go back to being hungry and annoying. [editline]4th July 2012[/editline] "Hey our buddy Iran is being attacked so let's risk obliteration by antagonizing the United States and our southern neighbor South Korea that even by itself has the ability to wipe us off the face of the planet"[/QUOTE] wtf are you talking about, south korea can't take down north korea by itself, in fact it's only the US's protection that have kept them from becoming south north korea already

[QUOTE=KaIibos;36638415]wtf are you talking about, south korea can't take down north korea by itself, in fact it's only the US's protection that have kept them from becoming south north korea already[/QUOTE] Uh no, they can. SK is tons of years ahead of NK technologically, they are well fed (unlike NK) and have plenty of man power. The only thing NK has is numbers which would be countered pretty quickly and artillery pointing at Seoul which will only actually be effective for a day until SK evacuates the city. Assuming NK is not lying about that too. Hell, there are good chances the NK military is a lot smaller than they say it is. It would not be the first time they lied.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;36639261]Uh no, they can. SK is tons of years ahead of NK technologically, they are well fed (unlike NK) and have plenty of man power. The only thing NK has is numbers which would be countered pretty quickly and artillery pointing at Saigon which will only actually be effective for a day until SK evacuates the city. Assuming NK is not lying about that too.[/QUOTE] Saigon? You mean Seoul right? I'm not sure the they even call it Saigon anymore in Vietnam.