US and Iran

[Bogan]

I think I know what the charge will be, Cods. "Living while being a white infidel." You would think that after those two luvvie girls from Sweden got gang raped and had their heads chopped off in Morroco, some of these luvvies would grow a brain and keep right out of Muslim countries. Oh well, three less Greens voters.

[Mortdooley]

Imagine how the World would be if Bush had left Iraq alone, Saddam was the biggest threat Iran faced and left the rest of the world alone. I opposed the invasion of Iraq before it happened and I still see it as a major mistake with long range consequences. Then again if Hillary and Barry had left Libya alone the Middle East would probably be a more stable place.

[Bogan]

Mortdooley wrote

Imagine how the World would be if Bush had left Iraq alone, Saddam was the biggest threat Iran faced and left the rest of the world alone. I opposed the invasion of Iraq before it happened and I still see it as a major mistake with long range consequences.

If the USA had "left Iraq alone", Saddam Hussein would have made Kuwait a part of Iraq and he would then be flush with funds to move southwards and take Saudi Arabia. That is exactly what the US expected him to do, and for a month after the invasion, when the US was trying desperately to get enough forces inside Saudi to stop him, it was unlikely that the US had enough forces to stop him. Had Saddam taken Saudi, and there was nothing to stop him from doing so for at least a month after the invasion then, you would have ended up with a crazy dictator, who dropped poison gas on his own people, in control of 70% of the world's oil supply. And you don't think that would be a problem?

Mortdolley wrote

Then again if Hillary and Barry had left Libya alone the Middle East would probably be a more stable place.

What would have happened is that Ghaddafi would have carried out his threat to extract bloody revenge upon those of his own people that had rebelled against his rule. If you knew anything about history, which you obviously don't, then you would have remembered that the Euros only intervened after Ghaddafi made his threat. And the Euros had to drag the USA into supporting them, because the USA is sick and tired of being the world's policeman and getting no thanks for being so.

[brian ross]

The typical alarmist viewpoint, Bogan.

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he believed that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil - which they were, which was admitted years after the first Gulf War was over. Saddam Hussein had no intentions to invade Saudi Arabia. Would he? More than likely not. Afterall, he only invaded Kuwait because he believed he had American approval to do so.

Saddam Hussein was a bastard and he deserved to go but not for the fabricated cassus belli that Washington created to gain American popular support for the war that they created. Saddam had to go but he needed to go for the right reasons and the Weapons of Massed Distraction were not the right reasons. Iraq was incapable of creating WMDs after the first Gulf War when they had dismantled their WMD programmes. Iraq's problem was that they had not kept adequate records sufficient to satisfy the American hawks. The UN investigation proved there were not WMD programmes in Iraq - something which I and most other rational people pointed out at the time.

[Bogan]

Typical viewpoint of a Socialist dreamer who has a US Derangement Syndrome, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and White Race Derangement Syndrome.

The criminal is always right, especially if he has a dark face, and the white policeman is always wrong.

Briney wrote

Saddam Hussein was a bastard and he deserved to go but not for the fabricated cassus belli that Washington created to gain American popular support for the war that they created.

Saddam Hussein created the war, not the USA. If somebody breaks into Brian's house, he blames the police.

Briney wrote

Saddam had to go but he needed to go for the right reasons and the Weapons of Massed Distraction were not the right reasons. Iraq was incapable of creating WMDs after the first Gulf War when they had dismantled their WMD programmes. Iraq's problem was that they had not kept adequate records sufficient to satisfy the American hawks. The UN investigation proved there were not WMD programmes in Iraq - something which I and most other rational people pointed out at the time.

Saddam Hussein did everything to convince the USA and the rest of the world that he had WMD. And if the world and the USA did not like it they could go and fuck themselves. He held up that nuclear trigger for all to see on TV and laughed. He played the shell game and harassed the UN inspection teams, at least once at gunpoint, according to Australia's own Richard Butler. It was only when the US expressed their intention to invade Iraq did Saddam Hussein say that the dog ate his homework.

The USA invaded Iraq like they invaded Germany and Japan, and they got rid of one of the worst regimes in modern history. They set up a democracy and advised the Shiite government to set up a democratic government representative of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. But because they are dumb Arabs who, when their tribe is on top, oppress everybody else, they did not do what the Americans told them to do. And a Sunni rebellion ensued. The Japs and the Germans are a lot smarter than the Arabs. Germany and Japan are still democracies and to of the richest countries on the planet. Iraq is still one of the poorest because it is populated by dumb Arabs who are still tribal, and they are the captives of a fascist religion which is more appropriate to the values of desert caravan raiders than the modern world.

[brian ross]

Only problem is, Bogan, Germany and Japan declared war first, on the US, not the US on them.

The US went to the UN to gain it's imprimatur to allow it to attack Iraq in 2003. It failed, after a completely fabricated argument was proved to not be convincing enough and so the US, the UK and Oz all decided to declare war on Iraq, separate to the UN. Now, compared that to 1990 when Iraq declared war on Kuwait and the US gained UN approval to attack Iraq and eject it from Kuwait.

There are rules to war, well at least for so-called civilised nations there are. The US failed to gain the UN's support. Therefore, it's war against Iraq was illegal under international law. QED.

That does not mean Iraq was right to attack Kuwait. That does not mean that the US was right to attack Iraq in 2003 simply because it was right to do so in 1990.

[Bogan]

Brian tried

Only problem is, Bogan, Germany and Japan declared war first, on the US, not the US on them.

The United States was supposed to be neutral, but it was not. US troops "occupied" neutral Iceland and FDR illegally gave military aid to Britain. Japan did not declare war on the USA. It bombed Pearl harbour and then declared war. Hitler declared war first to aid his ally, Japan. Because by supporting Japan he hoped that they would reciprocate and help him by opening a second front in the East against Russia.

The USA was slow entering in WW1 and WW2 because of multiculturalism. There was a very high proportion of ethnic Germans in the northern states who were opposed to war with Germany in both world wars, and they were in electorally significant numbers. Hitler even had a map showing which US states had high concentrations of ethnic Germans where he expected electoral support for his regime.

The one thing all of this told the US government was that it was naive to be neutral. More than a dozen neutral nations had been invaded, either became they got in the way, they were handy for bases, or somebody coveted their resources. The US realised it had to be pro active in fighting totalitarians. That did not mean it picked a fight with all of them, only the ones who were becoming too much of a threat to the peace of the world.

I just happen to agree with the USA. If you have a psychotic dictator causing trouble everywhere you draw the line and tell him to behave himself, or else. Saddam was becoming too much of a problem. If he had just behaved himself he would still be alive and tens of thousands of people would not have died. Saddam Hussein was the problem, the USA was the solution.

Brian Ross wrote

The US went to the UN to gain it's imprimatur to allow it to attack Iraq in 2003. It failed, after a completely fabricated argument was proved to not be convincing enough and so the US, the UK and Oz all decided to declare war on Iraq, separate to the UN. Now, compared that to 1990 when Iraq declared war on Kuwait and the US gained UN approval to attack Iraq and eject it from Kuwait.

The very fact that a British Labor government agreed with the USA that Saddam had WMD's exactly as Saddam said he did, clearly displayed that the British considered Saddam an unacceptable threat to world peace. The fact that nobody else did only proves that most of the world is no less cowardly in appeasing crazy warmongering psychopathic dictators than they were in 1939.

Now, here we go again. Iran is a serious threat to world peace but nobody wants a war. What the USA wants is for Iran to stop it's nuclear program. If it does that then sanctions are removed and everybody is happy. But the Iranian mullahs and Ayatollahs don't want world peace. Their religion demand continuous war to conquer the world for Islam. And they are the ones on top in Iran with all the money, and power, and all the young girls their tongues can handle. They do not want to give up power but their economy is in real trouble and the Iranian people, especially the young ones, are restless.

The USA hopes that the Iranian people will rise up and throw out their clergy government but that is probably not going to happen because the mullahs have more support for their regime than the Shah had for his. So, the mullahs are going to do a Galtieri and provoke the USA in every way they can to start a war. They are sticking limpet mines on tankers, conducting mock attacks on US Navy vessels, taking Australian hostages, and now they are bombing Saudi Arabia with cruise missiles.

And once again, Brian Ross becomes a defender of a warmongering bunch of totalitarian psychopaths because he prefers such regimes over the USA, who he has a mindless, compulsive hatred for.

[Bogan]

h7.png

Brian Ross pulls a face like this every time he hears the word "USA".

[brian ross]

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Delusions, hey, Bogan. I suggest that you see someone about your inability to accept reality.

The Iranians have come twice, since the Revolution of 1979 to throwing off the yoke of the Mullahs. In both cases, the Mullahs panicked and used their revolutionary guard units to institute the rule of the Mullahs on the streets of Tehran and other cities, in Iran. Who knows what will happen the next time, hey?

The problem for the Mullahs is that most of their support comes from the countryside. However, in the last 30 years, Iran has markedly changed. The people have left the countryside and gone to the cities in search of work. In the cities, their conservativeness has disappeared in the more liberal atmosphere of the suburban areas. The people are becoming progressive and are seeking liberal ideas. The Mullahs are losing their grip on Iranian people, particularly the younger generation who have been absorbing their ideas through satellite TV.

[Mortdooley]

Mortdooley wrote

Imagine how the World would be if Bush had left Iraq alone, Saddam was the biggest threat Iran faced and left the rest of the world alone. I opposed the invasion of Iraq before it happened and I still see it as a major mistake with long range consequences.

If the USA had "left Iraq alone", Saddam Hussein would have made Kuwait a part of Iraq and he would then be flush with funds to move southwards and take Saudi Arabia. That is exactly what the US expected him to do, and for a month after the invasion, when the US was trying desperately to get enough forces inside Saudi to stop him, it was unlikely that the US had enough forces to stop him. Had Saddam taken Saudi, and there was nothing to stop him from doing so for at least a month after the invasion then, you would have ended up with a crazy dictator, who dropped poison gas on his own people, in control of 70% of the world's oil supply. And you don't think that would be a problem?

Mortdolley wrote

Then again if Hillary and Barry had left Libya alone the Middle East would probably be a more stable place.

What would have happened is that Ghaddafi would have carried out his threat to extract bloody revenge upon those of his own people that had rebelled against his rule. If you knew anything about history, which you obviously don't, then you would have remembered that the Euros only intervened after Ghaddafi made his threat. And the Euros had to drag the USA into supporting them, because the USA is sick and tired of being the world's policeman and getting no thanks for being so.

Kuwait was stealing the natural resources of their neighbor and got caught. Saddam didn't want the whole country. Just the area used to steal his oil! A negotiated withdrawal with just compensation for stolen oil would have been the better outcome. No reason to topple his government after 9/11 since he had nothing to do with it!

Ghaddafi had not been a problem for the West since Reagan, any internal problems were their own to deal with.

Taking out the Leaders of these countries didn't make the World a safer place. And yes, I do know history and spending American lives and treasure in those countries doesn't serve the interests of the USA!