Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that's what makes our foreign policy going back to Reagan so absurd. In order to keep Iran in check, we backed Saddam, only to turn on him later on down the road. In order to beat back the Soviets, we backed the "freedom fighters" now known as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, only to have them turn on us down the road. Now, in order to keep Iran in check again, we are seeking the help of the Iraqi Sunnis, who, incidentally, are the same sect from which Saddam came, and happens to be the side that Al Qaeda is on over there right now.
When you look at it like this, and you think of how the government just froths people into a frenzy hating all these groups that are our enemies today, but were our "friends" yesterday, it makes you wonder what the actual end goal of all this is, or if there even is one besides constant turmoil and war.
This is better. Someone who goes back in history prior to GW, but magically stops at... Reagan.
Well, lets go back farther, since history tells a story.
We supported the government of South Vietnam to hold back the communists of the north who were backed by the soviets, we supported South Korea to hold back the Chinese to the north, we now are "friends" and trading partners with China and Russia. We supported the Russians and the Chinese in part during WWII so we could defeat the Germans and the Japanese, but once the war was over we opposed the Chinese and the Soviets and have spent these last 6 decades trading with and support Germany and Japan.
We can keep going back, war by war, but lets get quickly back to this one.
Many of our Forefathers bled and died to defeat an evil empire that oppressed our country. These evil tyrants actually came onto American soil to defeat us. Yet, today they are our strongest allies. Can you name the invaders and the war that was fought?
History does not support your position that somehow all that is happening with the current situation is somehow new and devious.
This is better. Someone who goes back in history prior to GW, but magically stops at... Reagan.
Well, lets go back farther, since history tells a story.
We supported the government of South Vietnam to hold back the communists of the north who were backed by the soviets, we supported South Korea to hold back the Chinese to the north, we now are "friends" and trading partners with China and Russia. We supported the Russians and the Chinese in part during WWII so we could defeat the Germans and the Japanese, but once the war was over we opposed the Chinese and the Soviets and have spent these last 6 decades trading with and support Germany and Japan.
We can keep going back, war by war, but lets get quickly back to this one.
Many of our Forefathers bled and died to defeat an evil empire that oppressed our country. These evil tyrants actually came onto American soil to defeat us. Yet, today they are our strongest allies. Can you name the invaders and the war that was fought?
History does not support your position that somehow all that is happening with the current situation is somehow new and devious.
Sure, we're allies with the nation whom we had to fight to gain our independence, but that took decades to happen. Of course alliances change over large periods of time. Circumstances change, regimes change, and all political realities change eventually. I'm not saying the world's alliances should be as they were back in 1800.
I "magically" stop at Reagan, though, because so many current events and issues tie in to former Reagan foreign policies. Our current relations with the Vietnamese have little significance to what is happening today, although the entire Cold War does illustrate the point further.
But don't you think it's just a LITTLE odd that Saddam was one of our pet projects as recently as 1983, yet by 1991 he was Satan personified, and by 2003 he had to be killed at all costs? What really changed between 1983 and 2003? Was it Saddam that changed, or did our "best interests" change? Don't you think that maybe it was a little shortsighted for us to throw our finanical support behind the Afghanistani "freedom fighters", given how that entire region of the world had hated the West for nearly the entire 20th century? Was it that much of a reach to determine that eventually that support would be turned against us? Our foreign policy for years has been circular, with no real rhyme or reason and no foresight whatsoever. When a country makes policy of constant engagement in one arena or another, those conflicts of interest and contradictions are bound to happen because of the complexities of international relations. That is why we find ourselves in situations where we are backing the same sect in Iraq as Al Qaeda does. That is my main point.
Sure, we're allies with the nation whom we had to fight to gain our independence, but that took decades to happen. Of course alliances change over large periods of time. Circumstances change, regimes change, and all political realities change eventually. I'm not saying the world's alliances should be as they were back in 1800.
I "magically" stop at Reagan, though, because so many current events and issues tie in to former Reagan foreign policies. Our current relations with the Vietnamese have little significance to what is happening today, although the entire Cold War does illustrate the point further.
But don't you think it's just a LITTLE odd that Saddam was one of our pet projects as recently as 1983, yet by 1991 he was Satan personified, and by 2003 he had to be killed at all costs? What really changed between 1983 and 2003? Was it Saddam that changed, or did our "best interests" change? Don't you think that maybe it was a little shortsighted for us to throw our finanical support behind the Afghanistani "freedom fighters", given how that entire region of the world had hated the West for nearly the entire 20th century? Was it that much of a reach to determine that eventually that support would be turned against us? Our foreign policy for years has been circular, with no real rhyme or reason and no foresight whatsoever. When a country makes policy of constant engagement in one arena or another, those conflicts of interest and contradictions are bound to happen because of the complexities of international relations. That is why we find ourselves in situations where we are backing the same sect in Iraq as Al Qaeda does. That is my main point.
A little item called the petrodollar is what changed.
From 2000:
Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
You can rest assured that a lot of bad things happened in Baathist lead Iraq while Saddam was Supreme ruler and while he was being made tough enough to be Iraq's Supreme Ruler.
far less obvious is the ugly background on Iraq's weapon procurement and the use of these weapons on civilians which won't be closed in my view until we know more about the governments, companies, countries, and the individuals within them who supplied the Saddam regime for many years with weapons (including chemicals/technology) when informed government officials knew what he was using them for
If who played a role in Saddam's weapons procurement is suppose to be a secret that died with Saddam, it was one of the most widely known secrets of the 20th century. I'm sorry Brian but who paid for what and from who is fairly well documented and widely discussed in 2003-2004.
"Call me suspicious, but isn't it interesting just how many Iraqi's were 'shut up' permanently.[/quote]
Let's see, Saddam was captured in April of 2003, wasn't tried until June of 2004, wasn't found guilty until November of 2006 and was finally hanged a month later. That's a freaking long time to if the purposes was to keep a person quiet, especially Saddam Hussein who took every opportunity to make some statement a whole host of subjects.
A little item called the petrodollar is what changed.
From 2000:
Foreign Exchange: Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks - TIME
Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."
That sounds like the reason why Ghaddfi was killed as well
Not so much as a "God-fearing country" but a Money driven country
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
