Was Desert Storm About Oil or Bringing Democracy to Kuwait?

[TimmyBoy]

stupid analogy:roll:

It's only a stupid analogy because it shows your own stupidity. The Royal Family, no matter how benovalent they might be, has no legitimacy in it's rule over the people. It's one of the many reasons why we kicked the King of England out of the colonies; he had no legitimacy to rule. But the US gladly supports and fosters it anyway in Kuwait and Saudia Arabia. It's hypocracy at it's finest. A double standard in American foreign policy.

 

[SKILMATIC]

The Royal Family, no matter how benovalent they might be, has no legitimacy in it's rule over the people. It's one of the many reasons why we kicked the King of England out of the colonies; he had no legitimacy to rule. But the US gladly supports and fosters it anyway in Kuwait and Saudia Arabia. It's hypocracy at it's finest. A double standard in American foreign policy.

This argument doesnt even make sense. The Iraq war has nothing to do with or has any correlation to the Revolutionary War. Please submit just one correlation other than they were both wars and that people died.

Now that has got to be the worst come back I have ever heard. I see you haven;t gotten out much to learn street smarts. I mean what is this

It's only a stupid analogy because it shows your own stupidity.

???? God your horrible

 

[hiker]

you failed to enter choice #3
Defending a countries sovereignty
whether that was the real reason or not, i do believe that is the reason we were given for going in

Nail on the head. There is no way the free world could stand by and let one country sweep in and conquer another. Corruption and politics aside, I see that as the same reason much of the world decided to take a stand against our Iraq invasion. Then, of course, there was the further threat of an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Along with dozens of other secondary reasons.

Oh, and BTW, nice to see another Jets fan. I'm new, that makes me feel at home:smile:

 

[TimmyBoy]

Nail on the head. There is no way the free world could stand by and let one country sweep in and conquer another. Corruption and politics aside, I see that as the same reason much of the world decided to take a stand against our Iraq invasion. Then, of course, there was the further threat of an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Along with dozens of other secondary reasons.

Oh, and BTW, nice to see another Jets fan. I'm new, that makes me feel at home:smile:

The "free" world stood aside and allowed many stronger countries to sweep in and conquor weaker countries prior to and after Iraq swept into Kuwait. Why wouldn't the "free" world do the same for all these other countries before and after Desert Storm?

 

[SKILMATIC]

The "free" world stood aside and allowed many stronger countries to sweep in and conquor weaker countries prior to and after Iraq swept into Kuwait. Why wouldn't the "free" world do the same for all these other countries before and after Desert Storm?

Because you mental disorders would give a much bigger fit then.

 

[MSgt]

It's only a stupid analogy because it shows your own stupidity. The Royal Family, no matter how benovalent they might be, has no legitimacy in it's rule over the people. It's one of the many reasons why we kicked the King of England out of the colonies; he had no legitimacy to rule. But the US gladly supports and fosters it anyway in Kuwait and Saudia Arabia. It's hypocracy at it's finest. A double standard in American foreign policy.

So you're saying that we have colonialized Kuwait and Saudi? This would mean that we control thses governments and that they do our bidding. This would mean that they pay us taxes and we rape their land of resources. Try not to speak about things you don't understand. I guess you think we have colonialized Japan, South Korea, Okinawa, Germany and so many other places where we have bases and embassies. There is no hypocrisy. Only ignorance on your part about what a colony is.

 

[MSgt]

The "free" world stood aside and allowed many stronger countries to sweep in and conquor weaker countries prior to and after Iraq swept into Kuwait. Why wouldn't the "free" world do the same for all these other countries before and after Desert Storm?

The "Free" world did. Twice - Korea and Vietnam. Both of which, especially Vietnam, gave our selfish civilians a chance to prove to the world how weak our resolve and unity is.

Not acting on one country's invasion means we can't act on another? Because one thing didn't happen....another cannot? This is the same BS argument we hear when referring to Saddam. The facts are given about how evil Saddam was. The argument is vomitted up, "So? he isn't the only evil man on earth." Does this mean that since there is evil on the earth that we should not take some of it out without taking all of it out? Are you, personally, prepared to go to war for the next 30 years? Now...speak of which countries you are talking about.

 

[teacher]

Doesn't anyone think about how all of Europe lunged at the chance to "liberate" Kuwaitis from Saddam's tyranny, but completely turned their backs when it came time to "liberate" Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny?

Oh, oh, (raising hand), I do.

 

[TimmyBoy]

The "Free" world did. Twice - Korea and Vietnam. Both of which, especially Vietnam, gave our selfish civilians a chance to prove to the world how weak our resolve and unity is.

Not acting on one country's invasion means we can't act on another? Because one thing didn't happen....another cannot? This is the same BS argument we hear when referring to Saddam. The facts are given about how evil Saddam was. The argument is vomitted up, "So? he isn't the only evil man on earth." Does this mean that since there is evil on the earth that we should not take some of it out without taking all of it out? Are you, personally, prepared to go to war for the next 30 years? Now...speak of which countries you are talking about.

Gunny, I am certainly glad to see Saddam Hussien on trial. I certainly believe we need to stay the course in Iraq because the consequences are too great if we don't. The two problems I have are this:

1) The US motivation for invading Iraq and removing Saddam.

2) An inconsistent US foreign policy, that leaves one with the impression that the US only gets involved for money or resources. We need a consistent US foreign policy that will promote peace and which based on sound moral judgement rather than interests. When we abandoned our morals and our principles, we also lose some of the great power we wield as a nation.

 

[MSgt]

Gunny, I am certainly glad to see Saddam Hussien on trial. I certainly believe we need to stay the course in Iraq because the consequences are too great if we don't. The two problems I have are this:

1) The US motivation for invading Iraq and removing Saddam.

2) An inconsistent US foreign policy, that leaves one with the impression that the US only gets involved for money or resources. We need a consistent US foreign policy that will promote peace and which based on sound moral judgement rather than interests. When we abandoned our morals and our principles, we also lose some of the great power we wield as a nation.

1) I don't get this. There were plenty of "motivations" and reasons to get rid of Saddam without having to focus on the one that did not pan out. Despite the lack of WMD found...he was a threat. His existence as a figure head that defied America and the UN roll: ) was a deterrent to any social change in the Middle East. The biggest one now is the Iranian theocracy. My favorite is that we need to remove the oppressive sponsership from this Middle Eastern decaying civilization. This is where our real fight against terrorism should be. Chasing around the "symptoms" get us nowhere.

2) The American government exists to protect America's interests. Period. It does not exist to help the prosperity of others. It has always been this way. That means oil for your car and everything else in the country that employs the use of oil products. This means the free flow of trade. The "Boy Scout" mentality is very much a big part of the endeavors that we do. People are liberated. Dictators are taken down. Communism is held at the border. We cannot be a society that roams the Earth looking for a fight to dispel evil in every corner of the earth. For one, the American general public is weak and fickle. And two, maybe we could if other powers got off of their asses and helped every once in a while, but this is not the case.

What is frustrating is that when a mission is embarked, the first thing people tend to do is complain about anything they can find that is negative.

 

[TimmyBoy]

As in just about every war, Desert Storm, as presented to the public, was fantasy. We did not fight the Persian Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, but to ensure that we would continue to have cheap oil. Many people in the Middle East saw the Persian Gulf War for what it really was: a use of force by a country that consumed 25 percent of the world's oil to protect its access to cheap oil. The message sent by the United States was clear: we have everything and if you try to take it away from us, we will kill you.

We allied ourselves with some of the most despotic regimes to assure our access to cheap oil. The gross corruption of Kuwaiti rulers, who refused to move back to Kuwait until their opulent palaces were refurbished, were minor footnotes to a state-managed fairy tale of triumph.

 

[MSgt]

As in just about every war, Desert Storm, as presented to the public, was fantasy. We did not fight the Persian Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, but to ensure that we would continue to have cheap oil. Many people in the Middle East saw the Persian Gulf War for what it really was: a use of force by a country that consumed 25 percent of the world's oil to protect its access to cheap oil. The message sent by the United States was clear: we have everything and if you try to take it away from us, we will kill you.

We allied ourselves with some of the most despotic regimes to assure our access to cheap oil. The gross corruption of Kuwaiti rulers, who refused to move back to Kuwait until their opulent palaces were refurbished, were minor footnotes to a state-managed fairy tale of triumph.

So Kuwaitis had nothing to do with it? After we liberated Kuwaitis we commenced to imprison them and murder them too?

 

[cnredd]

As in just about every war, Desert Storm, as presented to the public, was fantasy. We did not fight the Persian Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, but to ensure that we would continue to have cheap oil. Many people in the Middle East saw the Persian Gulf War for what it really was: a use of force by a country that consumed 25 percent of the world's oil to protect its access to cheap oil. The message sent by the United States was clear: we have everything and if you try to take it away from us, we will kill you.

We allied ourselves with some of the most despotic regimes to assure our access to cheap oil. The gross corruption of Kuwaiti rulers, who refused to move back to Kuwait until their opulent palaces were refurbished, were minor footnotes to a state-managed fairy tale of triumph.

The difference...while answering Gunny's earlier question at the same time...is that the US attacked BOTH times while Europe(and Russia) didn't!...

Desert Storm was a coalition without anyone of the major "interested parties" dissenting, so your assertation that is was "a use of force by "a" country" is false...

They wanted to attack Saddam because of THEIR participation in cheap oil...

It was also the reason they DIDN'T attack when GWB did...They were ALREADY getting their oil on the sly and the US put a stop to it by attacking and forcing them to stop their little UN deal...

Remember...Europe gets more of its oil from the Middle East than the US..They also get more oil from the ME than anywhere else in the world...

By us attacking, it forced Europe(and Russia) to start playing fair...

And then people sit here and wonder why they "hate" us...:roll:

It also explains the hypocracy of people saying that we were "in bed" with Saddam in the 80s when we find that Europe's been "in bed" with him the whole time the United Nations had sanctions against Iraq up until the actual invasion...

 

[TimmyBoy]

The difference...while answering Gunny's earlier question at the same time...is that the US attacked BOTH times while Europe(and Russia) didn't!...

Desert Storm was a coalition without anyone of the major "interested parties" dissenting, so your assertation that is was "a use of force by "a" country" is false...

They wanted to attack Saddam because of THEIR participation in cheap oil...

It was also the reason they DIDN'T attack when GWB did...They were ALREADY getting their oil on the sly and the US put a stop to it by attacking and forcing them to stop their little UN deal...

Remember...Europe gets more of its oil from the Middle East than the US..They also get more oil from the ME than anywhere else in the world...

By us attacking, it forced Europe(and Russia) to start playing fair...

And then people sit here and wonder why they "hate" us...:roll:

It also explains the hypocracy of people saying that we were "in bed" with Saddam in the 80s when we find that Europe's been "in bed" with him the whole time the United Nations had sanctions against Iraq up until the actual invasion...

Our involvment in the Middle East, along with Europe's is centered around oil. We have no right to judge the Europeans so long as we do not hold ourselves to a higher moral standard. This "coalition" that you speak of was nothing more than stage managed fantasy as well. Most of the fighting was done by US and British troops. On top of that, corrupt regimes like the Syrians were demanding billions of dollars for the price of sending their troops to "help" when in fact their troops did absolutely nothing and did no fighting and actually just kicked back in the rear in comfort and waved at US troops as they went into Kuwait and Iraq to do the fighting.

 

[MSgt]

Our involvment in the Middle East, along with Europe's is centered around oil. We have no right to judge the Europeans so long as we do not hold ourselves to a higher moral standard. This "coalition" that you speak of was nothing more than stage managed fantasy as well. Most of the fighting was done by US and British troops. On top of that, corrupt regimes like the Syrians were demanding billions of dollars for the price of sending their troops to "help" when in fact their troops did absolutely nothing and did no fighting and actually just kicked back in the rear in comfort and waved at US troops as they went into Kuwait and Iraq to do the fighting.

So what is so different from anything we do? Why are you so hell bent on only focusing on our interests rather than all of the other reasons involved?

 

[cnredd]

So what is so different from anything we do? Why are you so hell bent on only focusing on our interests rather than all of the other reasons involved?

I've seen it, too, Gunny...

This sentence from TimmyBoy sums up his ideology very nicely...

We have no right to judge the Europeans so long as we do not hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.

Notice how he totally exonerates Europe from doing this exact same thing?

Ever since right before the war started, the US has been judged, very harshly I might add, from the European elitists...as if THEY have some sort of "higher moral standard"...

We now find out this is because they were pi$$ed when they figured out that invading Iraq would kill their sweetheart background oil deal they had with the same regime they put sanctions on and put the civilian population in a stranglehold...

But I guess that's A-OK for some people...:roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

It was about both...........

 

[SKILMATIC]

I've seen it, too, Gunny...

This sentence from TimmyBoy sums up his ideology very nicely...

We have no right to judge the Europeans so long as we do not hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.

Notice how he totally exonerates Europe from doing this exact same thing?

Ever since right before the war started, the US has been judged, very harshly I might add, from the European elitists...as if THEY have some sort of "higher moral standard"...

We now find out this is because they were pi$$ed when they figured out that invading Iraq would kill their sweetheart background oil deal they had with the same regime they put sanctions on and put the civilian population in a stranglehold...

But I guess that's A-OK for some people...:roll:

Yeah its about time everyone realized that this guy has no credibility whatsoever.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I've seen it, too, Gunny...

This sentence from TimmyBoy sums up his ideology very nicely...

We have no right to judge the Europeans so long as we do not hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.

Notice how he totally exonerates Europe from doing this exact same thing?

Ever since right before the war started, the US has been judged, very harshly I might add, from the European elitists...as if THEY have some sort of "higher moral standard"...

We now find out this is because they were pi$$ed when they figured out that invading Iraq would kill their sweetheart background oil deal they had with the same regime they put sanctions on and put the civilian population in a stranglehold...

But I guess that's A-OK for some people...:roll:

Who are we to judge if we are no better than the criminals? The only reason why we invaded was because we wanted the sweetheart deals the Europeans and Russians were enjoying.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Yeah its about time everyone realized that this guy has no credibility whatsoever.

Heh don't take it out on the messenger if he brings truthful bad news. That isn't going to do you any good.

 

[MSgt]

Who are we to judge if we are no better than the criminals? The only reason why we invaded was because we wanted the sweetheart deals the Europeans and Russians were enjoying.

How are we not better? Since you like to turn your back on the acvtual facts involved and merely draw upon what will enable you to hate your country....I'll remind you.

The "sweetheart deals" of the Europeans and Russians were under the table as there UN representation held sanctions on Saddam. They were wrong in the first place, yet you only find enough strength to condemn American action. Perhaps you would like a commentary on how much better we are than Europe and our enemies. Just ask.

Wasn't it you that likes to parade around the fact about how Clinton's government screwed over the people of Bosnia by not helping? YET you condemn the Bush government for helping Iraqis? You have very deep and personal issues pal. You should sort out your head.

 

[TimmyBoy]

How are we not better? Since you like to turn your back on the acvtual facts involved and merely draw upon what will enable you to hate your country....I'll remind you.

The "sweetheart deals" of the Europeans and Russians were under the table as there UN representation held sanctions on Saddam. They were wrong in the first place, yet you only find enough strength to condemn American action. Perhaps you would like a commentary on how much better we are than Europe and our enemies. Just ask.

Wasn't it you that likes to parade around the fact about how Clinton's government screwed over the people of Bosnia by not helping? YET you condemn the Bush government for helping Iraqis? You have very deep and personal issues pal. You should sort out your head.

I don't condemn the fact we got rid of Saddam Hussien, I condemn the fact that the Bush Adminstration invaded Iraq on false intelligence and exploited 9/11, turned on nationalist sentiment to gather support for the invasion and then invaded to topple Saddam not so much because he was a ruthless tyrant, which he was, but because Saddam was no longer serving American oil interests and was also a threat to other American oil interests in the area. That is what I condemn, I condemn a foreign policy based on economic greed and their is a solution to avoid our dependency on foriegn oil. And most importantly, I condemn the fact that the Bush Adminstration was dishonest when presenting a case to invade Iraq and topple Saddam.

 

[MSgt]

I don't condemn the fact we got rid of Saddam Hussien, I condemn the fact that the Bush Adminstration invaded Iraq on false intelligence and exploited 9/11, turned on nationalist sentiment to gather support for the invasion and then invaded to topple Saddam not so much because he was a ruthless tyrant, which he was, but because Saddam was no longer serving American oil interests and was also a threat to other American oil interests in the area. That is what I condemn, I condemn a foreign policy based on economic greed and their is a solution to avoid our dependency on foriegn oil. And most importantly, I condemn the fact that the Bush Adminstration was dishonest when presenting a case to invade Iraq and topple Saddam.

How long had Saddam not been serving our oil interests? There were multiple reasons for attacking Iraq. This has been stated plenty of times. Oil and humanitarian, is only two.

Your opinions on dishonesty are just that. Opinions. There is plenty of proof that there was no lie. The Intel was presented for all to see from multiple sources. I walk in out odf the rain an hour ago. You ask me if it is raining. I say yes. You walk outside and the sun is now out. I'm now a liar?

I'm coming to believe that you will never be satisfied with the doings of your country. You will always seek out the negative and you will always complain about something.

 

[TimmyBoy]

How long had Saddam not been serving our oil interests? There were multiple reasons for attacking Iraq. This has been stated plenty of times. Oil and humanitarian, is only two.

Your opinions on dishonesty are just that. Opinions. There is plenty of proof that there was no lie. The Intel was presented for all to see from multiple sources. I walk in out odf the rain an hour ago. You ask me if it is raining. I say yes. You walk outside and the sun is now out. I'm now a liar?

I'm coming to believe that you will never be satisfied with the doings of your country. You will always seek out the negative and you will always complain about something.

I am sure their are multiple reasons, but what about the primary reasons for taking Saddam out? Why don't we take out other ruthless dictators who are worse AND have less ability to defend themselves from a US invasion? You are right, that this is my OPINION, but my opinion is based on first hand knowledge of being in the military myself and seeing how the US government acted as accomplices to genocide in Bosnia, both of which the Bush Sr and Clinton Adminstration have a hand in. What about Sudan? They are sufferring right now and yet we stand aside and do nothing. Many many places where their is ruthless dictators and mass genocides, yet we are unconcerned about these places. We seem to ignore these places.

Let's talk about our support for Saddam Hussien. We supported Saddam while he was committing some terrible war crimes. Why would we support a dictatorship? Or, we can look at our support for Pinochet, who comitted terrible crimes against his own people or the US orchestrated coup that brought a dictator to power in Indonesia and with US support killed 500,000 of his own people. If we were to look at US policy of bring "freedom and democracy" to the world, we would see that it is inconsistent. If we look at US policy through the prism of protecting US economic and monied interests, we would see that it is very consistent. This being the case, US foreign policy does not garner much respect because it is self serving. Not to mention, it seems the US supports "democracy and freedom" in Iraq only because it serves it's best economic interests. It seems we support Saddam when he serves our interests and then bring "democracy and freedom" to Iraq when he no longer serves our interests.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Who are we to judge if we are no better than the criminals? The only reason why we invaded was because we wanted the sweetheart deals the Europeans and Russians were enjoying.

Well who are judges and supreme court justices to judge becasue they are no better than anyone else.

And what sweetheart delas are you talking about? Again its obvious to me you are an idiot that makes light of his own idiocy. The europeans pay more for oil and fuel than any other nation or continent in the world. We pay around 3bucks a gal. They pay around 250 a liter. Which translates to about 6bucks a gal. So you are wrong again. You seriously are batting 0. You remind me of the Astros. You are getting swept.