America supports you

Originally posted by roughrider
That's Intentionally. Remember the Weapons Of Mass Destruction? Pfftt.

Yeah I remember them.

Originally posted by roughrider
Remember the domino theory of Vietnam? It's here again. Totally remake Iraq into a western-type democracy, and all the surrounding countries will follow? Vietnam: If we don't intervene, all of Asia will become communist.

Originally posted by roughrider
However many of his own people Saddam brutalized and killed, I wonder how many innocents have died by aerial bombing and being caught in a crossfire; comparable number?

How is that comparabvle to vietnam? Where was the dictator, cause I can tell you who it was in ww2. . .

Originally posted by roughrider
Saddam may have condemned the USA, but his country wasn't a religious theocracy like others - the kind that breed terrorists who believe in Jihad. Well, there is a hell of a lot of terrorists operating in Iraq NOW, thanks to an illegal invasion.

Originally posted by roughrider
That Saddam was a bad dictator has never been the point,

Originally posted by roughrider
in the big picture. It's when he stopped taking direction from Washington that he became a big menace.

Originally posted by roughrider
I see lots of dictators operating in other, OIL-FREE countries that don't get invaded. Oh, a lot of them have weapons, too.

Tried diplomacy to get the genocide to stop in sudan, guess what? There wasn't a resolution that allowed the UN to use any means necicery with there as their was with Iraq. . .

Originally posted by roughrider
I love how they keep trying to compare it to WW2, in an effort get some legitimacy.

Originally posted by roughrider
Or, we could just say that America the Empire, the sole superpower, is going to do what it wants in this world from now on. If outside countries don't like it, tough.

Originally posted by roughrider
It seems Rome has returned...

Even if it was an illegasl war and not one under UN resolution that people seem to forget about it. . . What is the UN going to do about it?

Nothing they seems to have the US act as the cleanup comitee. .

Cause they're still sitting on their asses letting the freaking US get away with everything. . .

If you have a big mean dog, and the owner lets it bite a child, shouldn't action be taken? Seems both the dog and the owner aren't doing anything.

Course not that I expected France or Germany to supposrt the war, what with the oil-for -food scandal and all. Why would they attack a country they were getting fat off of?

I seem to remember that dictator from Germany - Adolph something - actually declared war on the United States first.

Saddam, a bad dictator, was the point? He gassed thousands of his own people in 1988, but that wasn't enough to make Washington remove their support. He was the point man against Iran, the big enemy in the region then. He was an important figure militarily; sanctions against him were considered "premature."

Just where were these terrorists during the Clinton days? Some were not far away in Palestine, not Iraq. Not a single terrorist involved in 9/11 was from Iraq, but from friendly Saudi Arabia.

Sudan, like Rwanda, are problemic because of the painful experience of Somalia in 1993. People thought removing the central dictator/warlord - Mohammed Aidid - would help to stabilize the area and people would accept peace. Instead, countries like the USA and Canada found that people involved in clan/tribal feuds and war may want peace, but not if it means sharing with that other clan over there; "It's we who should be in charge!" they think. Americans took a lot of casualties in that single day in October 1993, a Canadian regiment was disbanded in disgrace, and the west left Somalia feeling their open, helping hand was bitten. That's why our goverments sat on their hands a year later in Rwanda; more of the same tribal conflict, they thought. Let them settle it. But it was more than that. Unfortunately, passive stances like this gave terrorists ideas about the west, that would lead to 9/11.

I'm sorry Americans don't feel safe at home since 9/11. But there are consequences to walking around the world, remaking things in the image you want, in the name of your own security. When the invasion happened, it seems a slight majority believed safety at home was worth going into Iraq, to remove a dictator the USA created. But see how low the support has fallen in the 2 1/2 years since hostilities were supposed to have ended. Just like Vietnam - strong opening support ebbed away.

This kind of action isn't unprecidented. After WW2, the Soviet Union made sure every country in Europe on their border had a communist-friendly goverment, after losing over 25 million people in a terrible Nazi invasion. They would NEVER be invaded again, they asserted. Their security mattered more than anything.

Originally posted by roughrider
I seem to remember that dictator from Germany - Adolph something - actually declared war on the United States first.

Originally posted by roughrider
Saddam, a bad dictator, was the point? He gassed thousands of his own people in 1988, but that wasn't enough to make Washington remove their support. He was the point man against Iran, the big enemy in the region then. He was an important figure militarily; sanctions against him were considered "premature."

Originally posted by roughrider
Just where were these terrorists during the Clinton days?

Originally posted by roughrider
Some were not far away in Palestine, not Iraq. Not a single terrorist involved in 9/11 was from Iraq, but from friendly Saudi Arabia.[b/]

Originally posted by roughrider
[B]Sudan, like Rwanda, are problemic because of the painful experience of Somalia in 1993. People thought removing the central dictator/warlord - Mohammed Aidid - would help to stabilize the area and people would accept peace. Instead, countries like the USA and Canada found that people involved in clan/tribal feuds and war may want peace, but not if it means sharing with that other clan over there; "It's we who should be in charge!" they think. Americans took a lot of casualties in that single day in October 1993, a Canadian regiment was disbanded in disgrace, and the west left Somalia feeling their open, helping hand was bitten. That's why our goverments sat on their hands a year later in Rwanda; more of the same tribal conflict, they thought. Let them settle it. But it was more than that. Unfortunately, passive stances like this gave terrorists ideas about the west, that would lead to 9/11.

But hey Diplomatic method in the UN to stop the genocide fiailed because some big countries were more concerned with how it would affect them financially.

It's like the league of nations all over again. A lot of good intention but handled poorly they accomplish nothing.

Originally posted by roughrider
I'm sorry Americans don't feel safe at home since 9/11. But there are consequences to walking around the world, remaking things in the image you want, in the name of your own security. When the invasion happened, it seems a slight majority believed safety at home was worth going into Iraq, to remove a dictator the USA created. But see how low the support has fallen in the 2 1/2 years since hostilities were supposed to have ended. Just like Vietnam - strong opening support ebbed away.

Originally posted by roughrider
This kind of action isn't unprecidented. After WW2, the Soviet Union made sure every country in Europe on their border had a communist-friendly goverment, after losing over 25 million people in a terrible Nazi invasion. They would NEVER be invaded again, they asserted. Their security mattered more than anything.

Originally posted by Arahan
Here by popular demand :

Is it just me or is there something slightly tongue-in-cheek about that speech? I dunno, there's just something vaguely sarcastic about the line about "heroism is doing what you're told and not asking questions".

Originally posted by Creshosk
right. . because we're going in to fight communism . . oh wait, we went in after saddam. . .

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
One should probably look even further back into history, but 1953 is as good a place to start as any - U.K. and U.S. intelligence agencies instigated the removal of the elected Iranian PM Mohammad Mosaddeq, due to fears of increasing ties between Iran and the Soviet Union, restoring the Shah to power.
The Iranian [oil] industry was opened to a consortium of French, Dutch, British and American oil companies.
The Shah autocracy, supported by the U.S. and U.K. governments, was in rule until the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, in which Ayatolla Khomeini took power.
In 1980 Iraq invades Iran, marking the beginning of the Iraq-Iran War. The possibility of a U.S. "green light" for the Iraq invasion of Iran has been posed due to the notes of Alexander Haig, on comments by then-Prince late King Fahd of the House of Saud, and then-President Anwar Sadat or Egypt.
After the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq-US diplomatic relations were severed and in 1979 Iraq was placed on the State Department's "terrorist countries" list. However in 1982 Iraq was removed from the list by Reagan, against objections by Congress and despite intelligence reports that Iraq had been acquiring chemical weapon capability since the mid-70's and was still known to be sponsoring groups on the State Department "terrorist list". This enables the sale of military-use technology to Iraq.
"December 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.
November 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S. would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.
November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
October 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.
March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement recognizing Iraq's use of these weapons.
May 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports ot Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.
March 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.
May 17, 1987. Iraqi attack on USS Stark costs 37 American lives. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger declares, "We will not be driven from the gulf," and accepts Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's apology for the "unintentional incident."
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.
February 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.
April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.
August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. (For confirmation of DIA involvement, check the New York Times, August 18, 2002). Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.
August 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.
August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and Hughes helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.
September 1988. US Senate Foreign Relations Committee summarizes their knowledge of the victims of the chemical attacks: "Those who were very close to the bombs died instantly. Those who did not die instantly found it difficult to breathe and began to vomit. The gas stung the eyes, skin, and lungs of the villagers exposed to it. Many suffered temporary blindness. Those who could not run from the growing smell, mostly the very old and the very young, died."
September 8, 1988 U.S. Senate unanimously passes the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced. The act would have cut off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announces its opposition to the bill, and State Department spokesman Charles Redman calls the bill "premature.” Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State says, "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill dies.
September 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax to Iraq.
September 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulinum toxin to Iraq.
September 1988. December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond.
1990. From July 18 to 1 August the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development. The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait. August 2, Iraq invades Kuwait."

Originally posted by demigawd
Is it just me or is there something slightly tongue-in-cheek about that speech? I dunno, there's just something vaguely sarcastic about the line about "heroism is doing what you're told and not asking questions".

You think the Bush administration had something to do with this?

Pretty good propaganda tool comic books, always have been.

Or do you think its subjective validation and we're reading into it what we want to see?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Relatively off-topic but "the problem of Saddam Hussein" was in part a residual of U.S.-Soviet enmity.
Quick-ish history lesson (Disclaimer: I didn't compile most of this):
Dictator's are fine when they're dictators you're happy with, or when they don't control any valuable strategic resources.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Pretty good propaganda tool comic books, always have been.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Or do you think its subjective validation and we're reading into it what we want to see?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Same's true all over. Doesn't matter who you are seems to be that way whereever.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You think the Bush administration had something to do with this?

Naw. Best guess? Marvel thought it would be good PR. So they told Jenkins to write something to support the troops. Jenkins probably was anti-Administrator and anti-military and wanted a really well-disguised way to show it. Hence the "if you're a good boy you'll never ask questions, even if you don't understand what's going on" line that seems a bit over-the-top.

Or do you think its subjective validation and we're reading into it what we want to see?

Well, I did say, "Is it just me...".

Originally posted by demigawd
Naw. Best guess? Marvel thought it would be good PR. So they told Jenkins to write something to support the troops. Jenkins probably was anti-Administrator and anti-military and wanted a really well-disguised way to show it. Hence the "if you're a good boy you'll never ask questions, even if you don't understand what's going on" line that seems a bit over-the-top.

Well, I did say, "Is it just me...".

Where is the Soviet Union today? Not there.

And where will the USA be in decades to come, if things keep going like this?
Ruling the world with an iron fist like King Thor, or imploding and dissolving from within like the Soviet Union? (Thor started with the best intentions.)

Or will it be like Jon Stewart said - eventually we'll see the Unitied States of Canada in the North, and Jesusland in the South?

What did Noam Chomsky say about America's foreigh policy ways? "Terrorism is when the OTHER guy does it. When we do it, it's called Security."

Sure, I think Saddam had some serious weapons at one time - he was being supplied by the USA for years. But perhaps the U.N. weapons inspectors were doing their job after all, since vitually nothing has been found for years. The time to keep doing their job was cut off by the Bush Administration, who would turn around and ask for more time themselves - to find the weapons once in Iraq, their faces getting more red with embarrassment every day.

Come on guys, no political debates here. Do that in another thread/forum.

Then maybe comics should stay out of politics ( Iron Man says something close to that.)

The problem here is that the War in Iraq is not Vietnam, and the War in Iraq is not WW2. It has elements from both, but is not exactly like either one. The thing that really pisses me off is that there is much more to impeach Bush for right now than there ever was for Clinton. Knowingly deceiving the American people and all that. Bioweapons from Niger my ass...